Ortiz CJJ, Alzina LA, Álvarez FM, Segura CJC

Language: English/Spanish
References: 11
Page: 285-290
PDF size: 123.09 Kb.

ABSTRACT

The objectives of this study were to evaluate the use of the real time ultrasonography (RTU) on the pregnancy diagnosis at 17 days post-insemination (PI) and to determine the effect of the time taken for the pregnancy diagnosis on the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the diagnosis. Forty sows were used in a first trial for the diagnosis of pregnancy, using 177 sec in average. In a second trial, 20 sows were used using an average time for diagnosis of 28 sec. In both trials, the sows were diagnosed also at 24 and 35 days PI. The reproductive management of the sows was the normally used at the farm; that is, they were artificially inseminated by the same technician. True positive a), false positives b), false negatives c) and true negative animals d), were the base to determine the sensitivity, specifi city and accuracy of the diagnosis of pregnancy at 17, 24 and 35 days PI. Sensitivity was determined as a/(a + c), specifi city as d/(b + d) and accuracy as (a + d)/(a + b + c + d). The specifi city of the diagnosis at 17 days PI and using a diagnosis time of 177 sec, was not calculated because true negative sows were not detected; the sensitibity and accuracy were 97.4% and 92.5%, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the RTU method at 17 days, practicing the diagnosis using 28 sec were: 81.3%, 25% and 70%, respectively. At 24 and 35 days PI, the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy were 100%. The sensitibity, specificity and accuracy of the pregnancy diagnosis at 17 days PI were greater when 177 sec, instead of 28 sec, were used (P ‹ 0.05).

REFERENCES

1. Viana CHC, Gama RD, Vianna WL, Alvarenga MVF, Barnabe RC. Evaluation of ultrasonography on early gestation diagnosis in sows. [Serial online 2000 July 26]; cited 2005 April 6 [4 screen] Available from: URL:http://www.esaote-piemedical.com/application/application.html

2. Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática. Anuario estadístico del estado de Yucatán. Aguascalientes, Aguascalientes: INEGI, 1998.

3. García E. Modifi caciones al sistema de clasificación climática de Köeppen. México DF: Instituto de Geografía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 1988.

4. Thrusfi eld M. Veterinary Epidemiology. 2nd ed. London, UK: Blackwell Science Ldt,1995.

5. EpiInfo. A word processing, database, statistics program for public health for epidemiology program office. Center for disease control and prevention. Version 6.04. For Windows. Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 1996.

6. Miller GM, Breen SM, Roth SL, Willenburg MS, Zas SR, Knox RV. Characterization of image and labor requirements for positive pregnancy diagnosis in swine using two methods of real – time ultrasound. J Swine Health Prod 2003;11:233–239.

7. Mejia-Silva W, Cruz-Arambulo R, Calatayud-Marques D, León G, Quintero-Moreno M. Uso de ultrasonografía modo B en tiempo real para el diagnóstico precoz de gestación en la cerda. Revista Científi ca de la Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias-Zulia 2001; 11:418–422.

8. Belstran B. Reproductive uses of ultrasonography in swine breeding herds: Present and future applications. (Serial online 2000 Nov 3). [Cited 2004 Oct 29]; Available from: URL: http://mark.asci.ncsu.edu/Healthy- Hogs/book/2000/conten00.htm.

9. Williams S, Piñeyro P, de la Sota RL. Ultrasonografía reproductiva en producción porcina. Instituto de teriogenología. Analecta veterinaria (VE). 2001; 21:50-56.

10. Knox RV. Visualizing the reproductive tract of the female pig using real-time ultrasonography. J Swine Health Prod 1999; 7: 207-215.

11. Armstrong JD, Fraser R, Robertson M. Use of Realtime ultrasound for pregnancy diagnosis in swine. Amer Assoc of Swine Practitioners 1997; 195-202.