Evidence Hub

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Global Seroprevalence of Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Virus (PRRSV) in Pigs and Wild Boars: A Widespread and Impactful Swine Virus

Graziosi G, Longobardi C, Lupini C, Catelli E, Ferrara G

Veterinary sciences, 2026

1 citation

Abstract

Porcine reproductive and respiratory virus (PRRSV) has a significant clinical and economic impact on pig farming. The purpose of this study was to assess the global seroprevalence of PRRSV in pigs and wild boars using a systematic review and meta-analysis approach. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic review and meta-analysis on global serological data of PRRSV in pigs and wild boars was conducted. Studies published between 1993 and 2025 were searched in three electronic databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus. A total of 86 publications, belonging to 41 countries and including 690,771 animals, were deemed eligible. Following the identification and removal of outlier studies, the pooled serological prevalence was 14% (95% CI: 9-19%), and a high between-study heterogeneity was detected (I2 = 99.9%, p < 0.000001). Subgroup analyses showed statistically significant differences according to continents, with the highest prevalence found in Asia (P: 29%, 95% CI: 16-43%), and species, with a higher prevalence in domestic pigs (P: 26%, 95% CI: 18-35%) than in wild boars (P: 2%, 95% CI: 1-3%). Overall, the information hereby presented provides an overview of the global PRRSV situation and identifies key factors associated with increased prevalence, primarily related to animal density. These insights could inform future surveillance strategies and help target interventions to mitigate the…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free