Comparative efficacy of antimicrobials for treatment of clinical mastitis in lactating dairy cattle: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

IF 4.3 2区 农林科学 Q1 VETERINARY SCIENCES Animal Health Research Reviews Pub Date : 2019-12-01 DOI:10.1017/S1466252319000318
C B Winder, J M Sargeant, D Hu, C Wang, D F Kelton, M A Godkin, K J Churchill, A M O'Connor
{"title":"Comparative efficacy of antimicrobials for treatment of clinical mastitis in lactating dairy cattle: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.","authors":"C B Winder,&nbsp;J M Sargeant,&nbsp;D Hu,&nbsp;C Wang,&nbsp;D F Kelton,&nbsp;M A Godkin,&nbsp;K J Churchill,&nbsp;A M O'Connor","doi":"10.1017/S1466252319000318","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted to assess the relative efficacy of antimicrobial therapy for clinical mastitis in lactating dairy cattle. Controlled trials in lactating dairy cattle with natural disease exposure were eligible if they compared an antimicrobial treatment to a non-treated control, placebo, or a different antimicrobial, for the treatment of clinical mastitis, and assessed clinical or bacteriologic cure. Potential for bias was assessed using a modified Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. From 14775 initially identified records, 54 trials were assessed as eligible. Networks were established for bacteriologic cure by bacterial species group, and clinical cure. Disparate networks among bacteriologic cures precluded meta-analysis. Network meta-analysis was conducted for trials assessing clinical cure, but lack of precision of point estimates resulted in wide credibility intervals for all treatments, with no definitive conclusions regarding relative efficacy. Consideration of network geometry can inform future research to increase the utility of current and previous work. Replication of intervention arms and consideration of connection to existing networks would improve the future ability to determine relative efficacy. Challenges in the evaluation of bias in primary research stemmed from a lack of reporting. Consideration of reporting guidelines would also improve the utility of future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":51313,"journal":{"name":"Animal Health Research Reviews","volume":"20 2","pages":"229-246"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1466252319000318","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Animal Health Research Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466252319000318","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

Abstract

A systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted to assess the relative efficacy of antimicrobial therapy for clinical mastitis in lactating dairy cattle. Controlled trials in lactating dairy cattle with natural disease exposure were eligible if they compared an antimicrobial treatment to a non-treated control, placebo, or a different antimicrobial, for the treatment of clinical mastitis, and assessed clinical or bacteriologic cure. Potential for bias was assessed using a modified Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. From 14775 initially identified records, 54 trials were assessed as eligible. Networks were established for bacteriologic cure by bacterial species group, and clinical cure. Disparate networks among bacteriologic cures precluded meta-analysis. Network meta-analysis was conducted for trials assessing clinical cure, but lack of precision of point estimates resulted in wide credibility intervals for all treatments, with no definitive conclusions regarding relative efficacy. Consideration of network geometry can inform future research to increase the utility of current and previous work. Replication of intervention arms and consideration of connection to existing networks would improve the future ability to determine relative efficacy. Challenges in the evaluation of bias in primary research stemmed from a lack of reporting. Consideration of reporting guidelines would also improve the utility of future research.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
抗微生物药物治疗泌乳奶牛临床乳腺炎的比较疗效:系统综述和网络荟萃分析。
通过系统评价和网络荟萃分析来评估抗菌治疗泌乳奶牛临床乳腺炎的相对疗效。如果将抗菌药物治疗与未治疗的对照组、安慰剂或不同的抗菌药物治疗临床乳腺炎进行比较,并评估临床或细菌学治疗,则对暴露于自然疾病的泌乳奶牛进行对照试验是合格的。使用改进的Cochrane Risk of bias 2.0工具评估潜在偏倚。从最初确定的14775份记录中,54项试验被评估为合格。建立了按菌种分组进行细菌学治疗和临床治疗的网络。不同的细菌治疗网络排除了荟萃分析。对评估临床治愈的试验进行了网络荟萃分析,但由于缺乏精确的点估计,导致所有治疗的可信区间都很宽,没有关于相对疗效的明确结论。考虑网络几何可以为未来的研究提供信息,以提高当前和以前工作的效用。复制干预武器和考虑与现有网络的连接将提高未来确定相对疗效的能力。评估初级研究偏倚的挑战源于缺乏报告。审议报告准则也将提高今后研究的效用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Animal Health Research Reviews
Animal Health Research Reviews VETERINARY SCIENCES-
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: Animal Health Research Reviews provides an international forum for the publication of reviews and commentaries on all aspects of animal health. Papers include in-depth analyses and broader overviews of all facets of health and science in both domestic and wild animals. Major subject areas include physiology and pharmacology, parasitology, bacteriology, food and environmental safety, epidemiology and virology. The journal is of interest to researchers involved in animal health, parasitologists, food safety experts and academics interested in all aspects of animal production and welfare.
期刊最新文献
Recent advances in the use of bacterial probiotics in animal production Alternatives to antibiotics in veterinary medicine: considerations for the management of Johne's disease. Essential oils and essential oil compounds in animal production as antimicrobials and anthelmintics: an updated review. Evidence that ectoparasites influence the hematological parameters of the host: a systematic review. Applications of butyric acid in poultry production: the dynamics of gut health, performance, nutrient utilization, egg quality, and osteoporosis - CORRIGENDUM.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1