ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2026
Litter-Level Agreement of RT-qPCR Results for Influenza A Virus Between Oropharyngeal Swab, Udder Wipe, and Nasal Wipe Samples Collected in Chilean Swine Breeding Herds.
Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study evaluated the use of udder wipes and aggregated nasal wipes as group sampling methods to detect influenza A virus (IAV) in swine breeding herds. Five breeding herds were selected and sampled from 2022 to 2024. At each sampling, six pigs in five due-to-wean litters were selected and sampled using oropharyngeal swabs (one per pig) and nasal wipes (one nasal wipe for three pigs). Additionally, an udder wipe sample was collected for each litter. Overall, 26.1% (89/341) of the oropharyngeal samples were IAV RT-qPCR positive. At the litter level, 43.9% (25/57) had at least one positive oropharyngeal swab, 33.3% (19/57) had a positive udder wipe, and 26.7% (12/45) had at least one positive nasal wipe. When compared to the oropharyngeal litter-level classification, the sensitivity and specificity of udder wipes were estimated at 68.0% (46.5-85.1%) and 93.8% (79.2-99.2%), respectively. For nasal wipes, the estimated values were 75.0% (47.6-92.7%) and 100.0% (88.1-100.0%), respectively. Udder wipes and nasal wipes can be used for IAV monitoring in breeding herds. However, false-negative results may be of concern at the litter level. These estimates can be used to implement a sampling strategy that maximizes the room- and herd-level sensitivity.
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.