ArticlePorcine health management2026
Systematic review and meta-analysis on the diagnostic accuracy of various detection methods for porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus.
Article in Porcine health management, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCurrently, many detection methods for porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus have been developed, However, the optimal laboratory diagnostic method remains controversial. To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of PRRSV detection methods based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and to determine the optimal strategy for laboratory detection of PRRSV.
methodArticles published between 1 January 2015 and 1 January 2025 were retrieved from multiple databases. Based on different detection methods, the articles were divided into three categories: traditional immunological techniques, molecular amplification techniques, and convergent diagnostic technologies. The sensitivity and specificity of each study were calculated. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed using threshold value definitions, ROC curve analysis, and statistical methods. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model and pooled SROC curves. Stratified analysis and meta-regression were used to address effect size variability caused by differences in detection targets, tissue samples tested, and control trial designs.
resultsA total of 55 articles on traditional immunological techniques (involving 17,359 samples), 90 articles on molecular amplification techniques (involving 21,362 samples), and 14 articles on convergent diagnostic technologies (involving 1,289 samples) were included in the meta-analysis. In the 55 studies on traditional immunological techniques, the overall sensitivity was 0.93–0.94 (95% CI), and the overall specificity was 0.92 (95% CI). The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was 0.9686, with an overall diagnostic odds ratio of 115.23 (95% CI 71.38-186.01). In 90 studies on molecular amplification techniques, the overall sensitivity was 0.97 (95% CI 0.96–0.97), and the overall specificity was 0.99 (95% CI 0.99–0.99). The AUC was 0.9951, with an overall diagnostic odds ratio of 1540 (95% CI 883.97-2684.10). In 14 studies on convergent technologies, the overall sensitivity was 0.95 (95% CI 0.92–0.96), and the overall specificity was 0.98 (95% CI 0.96–0.99). The AUC was 0.9910, with an overall diagnostic odds ratio of 503.74 (95% CI 152.78-1660.88).
conclusionThe systematic review and meta-analysis results indicate that traditional immunological techniques, molecular amplification techniques, and convergent diagnostic technologies all exhibit high sensitivity and specificity. Among the three technological platforms, molecular amplification techniques consistently yielded the highest point estimates for sensitivity, specificity, and AUC, along with a markedly higher diagnostic odds ratio.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.