ArticleVeterinary research communications2026
Retrospective analysis of infectious agents in swine abortion materials in the years 2021 to 2023.
Article in Veterinary research communications, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Abortions in swine are caused by infectious and non-infectious factors and play an important economic role in the swine industry. Molecular biological testing for relevant pathogens is routine in state-of-the-art diagnostics. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of pathogens associated with abortions in central Europe to prioritize differential diagnoses. We report the detection rates of such pathogens in aborted material (fetuses, placenta) from 199 abortion cases sent to AniCon Labor GmbH/SAN Group Biotech Germany GmbH from January 2021 to July 2023. A key panel of pathogens that were tested in most abortion cases emerged, consisting of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV), Chlamydiaceae spp., porcine circovirus 2 (PCV2), porcine parvovirus (PPV) and Leptospira spp.. At least one of these pathogens was detected by real-time PCR in 38 of the 199 cases (19.1%). PRRSV (n=16) and Chlamydiaceae spp. (n=12) were most frequently found, whereas PCV2 (n=6), PPV (n=4) and Leptospira (n=2 cases) were detected less frequently. In 14 cases, potentially relevant pathogens outside the key panel were detected by molecular biological or culture methods. Three of those cases were additionally positive for a pathogen in the key panel. In total, pathogens associated with abortions were detected in 24.6% of cases. It is hypothesized that a more comprehensive diagnostic approach will lead to more frequent detection of pathogens not regularly tested by PCR in routine diagnostics.
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.