Exact(4)
*From each pig, 1 tracheal swab, 1 nasal swab, and 1 serum sample was collected, except during 2009 2012, when only 1,773 serum samples were collected from the 2,710 pigs beginning in February 2010.
Nasal secretion samples were collected using a 15 cm metal shaft rayon-tipped swab 1 advanced into either of the horse's nostrils and gently rotated against the mucous membranes for collection of nasal secretion and epithelial cells.
Clinical isolates were as follows: subauxiliary swab (4), skin swabs (2), wound (3), burn (1), blood (1), throat swab (2), ear swab (1), and peritonitis (1), while no S. lugdunensis isolates were recovered from urine, sputum swabs, stool swabs, and high vaginal swabs.
from wound swabs (37 isolates), abscesses (18 isolates), nasal swabs (18 isolates), ear swabs (9 isolates), blood samples (5 isolates), groin (5 isolates), throat swabs (5 isolates), urine samples (4 isolates), skin swabs (3 isolates), tracheal aspirates (3 isolates), high vaginal swabs (2 isolates), sputum (2 isolates) and eye swab (1 isolate).
Similar(56)
Sample Details: 1) Nasal swab; 2) Oropharyngeal swab Nasopharyngeal wash (NPW) and tracheal wash (TW) samples may also be appropriate respiratory samples from horses.
Skin swab samples were taken from all non-larval urodeles in each collection visited, whether they were live or dead, using a dry rayon-tipped swab (MW100, Medical Wire & Equipment, UK).
In hospital B, only 1 swab (1/28) produced a positive culture following decontamination of devices with alcohol-based wipes.
Participants provided a single nasal swab sample each, which they collected themselves according to instructions to insert a cotton-tipped swab ≈1 cm into each nostril.
Cervical swab 22. Urine dipstick test 23.
S. pneumoniae qPCR positive rate was significantly higher for OP swab compared to NP swab (P<.001).
In total, 126 conjunctival, 124 throat swab, 116 stool, and 124 urine specimens were analyzed.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com