ArticleVeterinary research communications2026
Comparison of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome modified live virus and inactivated virus vaccines against NADC34-like PRRS virus challenge in the field.
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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) is responsible for tremendous financial losses worldwide in the swine industry. Prevention and control of PRRS is still an enormous challenge for the swine industry. There is no unified view on how to minimise losses in infected herds. Here, we conducted a retrospective analysis after outbreaks in farms with modified live virus (MLV) and inactivated virus (KV) vaccination protocols in the field. This involved tracking and analysing production data and diagnostic test results from 11,091 sows over an 84-week period, including before, during, and after the PRRS virus (PRRSV) outbreak. Long-term observations revealed that the MLV-vaccinated farm returned to control line swine production metrics, including the return-to-oestrous rate (42 days), abortion rate, farrowing rate, mummified foetus rate, and live-born and preweaning mortality rates, than the KV-vaccinated farm did. However, the field strain positive rates of Farm B with the KV protocol remained relatively low (P < 0.05) during the beginning of first breeding cycle (0-3rd month), whereas those of Farm A with the MLV protocol increased (P < 0.01) during the first breeding cycle (0-4th month). Furthermore, the heterogeneity of the PRRSV antibody S/P values increased before 20 and 10 days before the PRRS outbreak, as determined by Kolmogorov‒Smirnov normality tests (P < 0.05). Our results revealed the characteristics of serum antibody changes preceding PRRS outbreaks and the impact of different types of vaccines on production metrics and PRRS field infection rates in piglets after outbreaks, providing a reference for subsequent sow management protocols before, during, and after PRRS outbreaks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42484939What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.