Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42075687›Full record

ArticlePathogens (Basel, Switzerland)2026

Sensitivity and Specificity Assessment of Various African Swine Fever ELISA Kits for Accurate Detection of Seropositive Wild Boar.

Virginia Friedrichs, Alexander Schäfer, Paul Deutschmann, Sabine Bock, Andreas Hlinak, Wulf-Iwo Bock, Andreas Moss, Martin Beer, Sandra Blome

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland), 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

9 authors.

Virginia FriedrichsFriedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Suedufer 10, 17493 Greifswald-Insel Riems, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5044-6508
Alexander SchäferFriedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Suedufer 10, 17493 Greifswald-Insel Riems, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4258-0651
Paul DeutschmannFriedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Suedufer 10, 17493 Greifswald-Insel Riems, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2717-1358
Sabine BockLandeslabor Berlin-Brandenburg (LLBB), Rudower Chaussee 39, 12489 Berlin, Germany.
Andreas HlinakLandeslabor Berlin-Brandenburg (LLBB), Rudower Chaussee 39, 12489 Berlin, Germany.
Wulf-Iwo BockLandeslabor Berlin-Brandenburg (LLBB), Rudower Chaussee 39, 12489 Berlin, Germany.
Andreas MossNiedersächsisches Landesamt für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit (LAVES), Stau 75, 26122 Oldenburg, Germany.
Martin BeerFriedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Suedufer 10, 17493 Greifswald-Insel Riems, Germany.
Sandra BlomeFriedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Suedufer 10, 17493 Greifswald-Insel Riems, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5465-5609

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The continuous and rapid spread of African swine fever (ASF) still poses a significant threat to Eurasian wild boar and domestic pigs, leading to substantial economic losses in all associated sectors annually. In Europe, including Germany, affected wild boar populations have become an important driver and host of ASF virus (ASFV), and monitoring and surveillance is key to tailor control measures that impede viral spread. While molecular methods are used to confirm the disease and to monitor viral evolution, serology gains importance in endemically affected regions as it provides insights into disease dynamics and possible attenuation of ASFV strains. Frontline serological diagnosis is done using ELISA assays, of which several are commercialized. However, accurate performance of ELISA assays is key for correct interpretation of wild boar samples. Due to the various stages of hemolysis and decay, field samples from wild boar can be challenging for ELISA assays. To assess which indirect or competitive ELISA kit performs best when dealing with such samples, we compared the sensitivity and specificity of four commercially available ELISA kits that are licensed in Germany, as well as three unlicensed but commercially available kits. For this comparison, we used all wild boar samples submitted to the National Reference Laboratory (NRL) for ASF in years 2021 and 2022, as well as samples from domestic pigs to have a control cohort where sample quality is optimal. We observed that wild boar samples, varying in stage of hemolysis and decay, were challenging for all kits included in this study. However, samples of domestic pigs were largely interpreted correctly by ELISA, using immunoperoxidase test as verification method. Additionally, the comparability of results obtained by regional laboratories was high. Our study provides data that highlights the importance of careful kit selection, assessment of sample quality, and data interpretation for effective ASFV surveillance and control.

Indexed as

African Swine FeverAfrican Swine Fever VirusAntibodies, ViralReagent Kits, DiagnosticSus scrofaAnimalsEnzyme-Linked Immunosorbent AssayGermanySensitivity and SpecificitySwineAntibodies, ViralReagent Kits, DiagnosticAfrican swine fever virusELISAfield samplessensitivityserologyspecificitywild boar

Identifiers

PMID42075687
PMCPMC13119471

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.