SynthesisBMC veterinary research2026
Comparative efficacy of medications and compound interventions against porcine epidemic diarrhea virus replication in vitro: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC veterinary research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPorcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDV) infection induces severe intestinal disease in neonatal piglets, resulting in substantial economic losses to the swine industry. Despite the availability of vaccines, their limited efficacy and the lack of effective antiviral treatments underscore the need for alternative therapeutic approaches. Several studies have reported the antiviral activity of various drugs and compounds against PEDV. To systematically compare the efficacy of these agents, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the inhibitory effects of various drugs or compounds on PEDV replication in vitro using cell based- models.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science and ScienceDirect, encompassing publications from the inception of each database to May 30,2025. Eligible studies primarily focused on the effects of pharmacological and combination interventions on PEDV replication in vitro. Changes in the tissue culture infectious dose (TCID50) served as the primary outcome measure, with standardized mean difference (SMD) used to quantify effect sizes.
resultsThirty-two eligible studies involving 41 distinct drugs and 63 effect sizes were analyzed. A random-effects model revealed an overall SMD of -12.30 (95% confidence interval: -13.64 to -10.95) for the antiviral efficacy of drugs at safe concentrations. Moderate heterogeneity was observed (I²=64.2%, P < 0.001), with subgroup analyses identifying cell type, viral strain, genotype, drug concentration and intervention duration as significant influencing factors (P < 0.05). Intrinsic antiviral activity emerged as the primary source of heterogeneity. Quality assessment using BRISQ guidelines rated 15 studies as high quality and 17 as medium quality, while modified ROBINS-I classified 26 studies as low risk of bias and 6 as moderate risk. Publication bias was suggested by funnel plots and egger’s test. However, sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results.
conclusionForty-one of drugs and compounds demonstrate effective inhibition of PEDV replication in vitro, with antiviral efficacy influenced by experimental variables and predominantly determined by intrinsic antiviral activity. These findings offer valuable guidance for optimizing the design of PEDV antiviral studies and contribute insights for future in vivo efficacy and mechanistic research. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open science framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/V4C8Y ).
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.