ArticleVeterinary and animal science2026
Field performance of a point-of-care PCR platform for the detection of influenza A virus in growing pigs.
Article in Veterinary and animal science, 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.
- Tick Microbiome and Its Role in Emerging Zoonotic Diseases and Transmissibility.Microorganisms · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Point-of-care (POC) testing involves conducting diagnostic assays near patients to enable rapid decision-making and timely intervention. To date, evaluation of POC devices under field conditions in veterinary medicine has been limited. The objective of this study was to describe the use and performance of a POC system in the field and with varying sample conditions using influenza A virus in swine. Seventy oral fluid samples were collected from ten swine farms and aliquoted into five treatments: portable PCR performed on farm (FARM), while driving (RIDE), after 24 h incubation at room temperature (RT), on ice (ICE), and as a gold standard, samples were also submitted for testing at the Ohio Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory (LAB). Influenza A virus was detected at least in one oral fluid sample for six out of the ten farms sampled according to gold standard results; within-herd prevalence in positive farms varied from 16.7 to 100.0%. POC system's Ct values were statistically associated with the gold standard results. POC tests showed high specificity, with median estimates ranging from 0.954 to 0.958 and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) consistently above 0.91. Sensitivity of POC tests varied more substantially, with the lowest observed in the ICE setting (median 0.805; 95% CrI: 0.607-0.945) and the highest in the RT setting (median 0.926; 95% CrI: 0.766-0.995). Our study showed that the POC PCR system was a promising method for on-site diagnostic testing, providing results consistent with official laboratory results.
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.