Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41753569›Full record

ArticleMicroorganisms2026

Full Factorial Comparison of the Diagnostic Performance of Three Nucleic Acid Extraction Kits and Three PRRSV RT-qPCR Assays Using Swine Oral Fluids of Known Status.

Betsy Armenta-Leyva, Gaurav Rawal, Jianqiang Zhang, Berenice Munguía-Ramírez, Grzegorz Tarasiuk, Danyang Zhang, Rolf Rauh, Kyoung-Jin Yoon, Luis G Giménez-Lirola, Jeffrey J Zimmerman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microorganisms, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Betsy Armenta-LeyvaDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4094-6813
Gaurav RawalDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3753-6119
Jianqiang ZhangDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7228-6202
Berenice Munguía-RamírezDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2557-1817
Grzegorz TarasiukDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.ORCID 0009-0009-7253-8372
Danyang ZhangDepartment of Statistics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.
Rolf RauhTetracore Inc., Rockville, MD 20850, USA.
Kyoung-Jin YoonDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3969-7285
Luis G Giménez-LirolaDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4407-7996
Jeffrey J ZimmermanDepartment of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8107-2422

Funding

Iowa State University Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory NA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) is one of the costliest diseases in swine production, causing >$1.2 billion USD in annual losses in the United States. Oral fluids are widely used for PRRS virus (PRRSV) surveillance, accounting for 42% of nearly 480,000 PRRSV RT-qPCR cases submitted to six Midwestern U.S. laboratories between 2020 and 2025. Despite this reliance, few studies have applied appropriate methodological approaches to compare the performance of commercial extraction and PRRSV RT-qPCR protocols for oral fluid specimens. In this study, we evaluated nine extraction-amplification protocols for PRRSV RNA detection, based on three commercial extraction kits and three commercial RT-qPCR assays. For each protocol, performance was evaluated using 314 oral fluid samples of known status (215 positive, 99 negative), collected under controlled conditions from 72 pigs assigned to five groups inoculated with contemporary PRRSV isolates and from one negative control group. The Cq values were normalized as efficiency-standardized Cqs (ECqs) and then analyzed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. The mean amplification efficiencies ranged from 67 to 92%, repeatability from 0.98 to 0.99, and overall reproducibility was 0.91. The ROC AUCs ranged from 0.916 to 0.986, with significant pairwise differences (

Indexed as

diagnostic sensitivitydiagnostic specificityECqefficiencymolecular assay evaluationoral fluidsprecisionreproducibilityROC analysisswine diagnostics

Identifiers

PMID41753569
PMCPMC12942653

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.