Pub Date : 2019-12-01DOI: 10.1017/S1466252319000240
Jan M Sargeant, Annette M O'Connor, Charlotte B Winder
This editorial summarizes the key observations from a special issue of Animal Health Research Reviews comprising 14 articles related to the efficacy of antimicrobial and non-antimicrobial approaches to reduce disease in beef, dairy cattle, swine, and broiler chickens. The articles used evidence-based methods, including scoping reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and network meta-analyses. Despite finding evidence of efficacy for some of the interventions examined, across the body of research, there was a lack of replication and inconsistency in outcomes among the included trials, and concerns related to completeness of reporting and trial design and execution. There is an urgent need for more and better data to inform antimicrobial stewardship practices in animal agriculture.
{"title":"Editorial: Systematic reviews reveal a need for more, better data to inform antimicrobial stewardship practices in animal agriculture.","authors":"Jan M Sargeant, Annette M O'Connor, Charlotte B Winder","doi":"10.1017/S1466252319000240","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466252319000240","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This editorial summarizes the key observations from a special issue of Animal Health Research Reviews comprising 14 articles related to the efficacy of antimicrobial and non-antimicrobial approaches to reduce disease in beef, dairy cattle, swine, and broiler chickens. The articles used evidence-based methods, including scoping reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and network meta-analyses. Despite finding evidence of efficacy for some of the interventions examined, across the body of research, there was a lack of replication and inconsistency in outcomes among the included trials, and concerns related to completeness of reporting and trial design and execution. There is an urgent need for more and better data to inform antimicrobial stewardship practices in animal agriculture.</p>","PeriodicalId":51313,"journal":{"name":"Animal Health Research Reviews","volume":"20 2","pages":"103-105"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1466252319000240","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"37663932","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-12-01DOI: 10.1017/S1466252319000276
C B Winder, J M Sargeant, D Hu, C Wang, D F Kelton, S J Leblanc, T F Duffield, J Glanville, H Wood, K J Churchill, J Dunn, M D Bergevin, K Dawkins, S Meadows, B Deb, M Reist, C Moody, A M O'Connor
A systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted to assess the relative efficacy of internal or external teat sealants given at dry-off in dairy cattle. Controlled trials were eligible if they assessed the use of internal or external teat sealants, with or without concurrent antimicrobial therapy, compared to no treatment or an alternative treatment, and measured one or more of the following outcomes: incidence of intramammary infection (IMI) at calving, IMI during the first 30 days in milk (DIM), or clinical mastitis during the first 30 DIM. Risk of bias was based on the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool with modified signaling questions. From 2280 initially identified records, 32 trials had data extracted for one or more outcomes. Network meta-analysis was conducted for IMI at calving. Use of an internal teat sealant (bismuth subnitrate) significantly reduced the risk of new IMI at calving compared to non-treated controls (RR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.25-0.72). For comparisons between antimicrobial and teat sealant groups, concerns regarding precision were seen. Synthesis of the primary research identified important challenges related to the comparability of outcomes, replication and connection of interventions, and quality of reporting of study conduct.
进行了系统回顾和网络荟萃分析,以评估奶牛在干燥时给予内部或外部乳头密封剂的相对功效。如果对照试验评估了使用内部或外部乳头密封剂,同时进行或不进行抗菌治疗,与不进行治疗或替代治疗相比,并测量了以下一项或多项结果:产羔时乳房内感染(IMI)的发生率,前30天母乳内感染(DIM)的发生率,或前30天临床乳腺炎的发生率。偏倚风险基于Cochrane偏倚风险2.0工具和修改的信号问题。从最初确定的2280个记录中,32个试验提取了一个或多个结果的数据。对产犊期IMI进行网络meta分析。与未处理的对照组相比,使用内乳头密封剂(亚硝酸盐铋)可显著降低产犊时新发IMI的风险(RR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.25-0.72)。对于抗菌剂和乳头密封剂组之间的比较,可以看到对精度的关注。初步研究的综合确定了与结果的可比性、干预措施的重复性和联系以及研究行为报告的质量有关的重要挑战。
{"title":"Comparative efficacy of teat sealants given prepartum for prevention of intramammary infections and clinical mastitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.","authors":"C B Winder, J M Sargeant, D Hu, C Wang, D F Kelton, S J Leblanc, T F Duffield, J Glanville, H Wood, K J Churchill, J Dunn, M D Bergevin, K Dawkins, S Meadows, B Deb, M Reist, C Moody, A M O'Connor","doi":"10.1017/S1466252319000276","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466252319000276","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted to assess the relative efficacy of internal or external teat sealants given at dry-off in dairy cattle. Controlled trials were eligible if they assessed the use of internal or external teat sealants, with or without concurrent antimicrobial therapy, compared to no treatment or an alternative treatment, and measured one or more of the following outcomes: incidence of intramammary infection (IMI) at calving, IMI during the first 30 days in milk (DIM), or clinical mastitis during the first 30 DIM. Risk of bias was based on the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool with modified signaling questions. From 2280 initially identified records, 32 trials had data extracted for one or more outcomes. Network meta-analysis was conducted for IMI at calving. Use of an internal teat sealant (bismuth subnitrate) significantly reduced the risk of new IMI at calving compared to non-treated controls (RR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.25-0.72). For comparisons between antimicrobial and teat sealant groups, concerns regarding precision were seen. Synthesis of the primary research identified important challenges related to the comparability of outcomes, replication and connection of interventions, and quality of reporting of study conduct.</p>","PeriodicalId":51313,"journal":{"name":"Animal Health Research Reviews","volume":"20 2","pages":"182-198"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1466252319000276","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"37663388","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-12-01DOI: 10.1017/s1466252320000055
{"title":"AHR volume 20 issue 2 Cover and Front matter","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/s1466252320000055","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1466252320000055","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51313,"journal":{"name":"Animal Health Research Reviews","volume":"20 1","pages":"f1 - f2"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/s1466252320000055","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45502019","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-12-01DOI: 10.1017/S1466252319000239
C B Winder, J M Sargeant, D Hu, C Wang, D F Kelton, S J Leblanc, T F Duffield, J Glanville, H Wood, K J Churchill, J Dunn, M D Bergevin, K Dawkins, S Meadows, B Deb, M Reist, C Moody, A M O'Connor
A systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted to assess the relative efficacy of antimicrobial therapy given to dairy cows at dry-off. Eligible studies were controlled trials assessing the use of antimicrobials compared to no treatment or an alternative treatment, and assessed one or more of the following outcomes: incidence of intramammary infection (IMI) at calving, incidence of IMI during the first 30 days in milk (DIM), or incidence of clinical mastitis during the first 30 DIM. Databases and conference proceedings were searched for relevant articles. The potential for bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 algorithm. From 3480 initially identified records, 45 trials had data extracted for one or more outcomes. Network meta-analysis was conducted for IMI at calving. The use of cephalosporins, cloxacillin, or penicillin with aminoglycoside significantly reduced the risk of new IMI at calving compared to non-treated controls (cephalosporins, RR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.23-0.65; cloxacillin, RR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.38-0.79; penicillin with aminoglycoside, RR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.26-0.72). Synthesis revealed challenges with a comparability of outcomes, replication of interventions, definitions of outcomes, and quality of reporting. The use of reporting guidelines, replication among interventions, and standardization of outcome definitions would increase the utility of primary research in this area.
通过系统回顾和网络荟萃分析来评估奶牛在干燥期给予抗菌治疗的相对效果。符合条件的研究是对照试验,评估抗菌素的使用与不治疗或替代治疗的比较,并评估以下一项或多项结果:产羔时乳腺内感染(IMI)的发生率,母乳前30天(DIM)的发生率,或前30天临床乳腺炎的发生率。检索数据库和会议记录以获取相关文章。使用Cochrane Risk of bias 2.0算法评估潜在的偏倚。从最初确定的3480个记录中,45个试验提取了一个或多个结果的数据。对产犊期IMI进行网络meta分析。与未治疗的对照组相比,头孢菌素、氯西林或青霉素与氨基糖苷的使用显著降低了产羔时新发IMI的风险(头孢菌素,RR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.23-0.65;氯西林,RR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.38-0.79;青霉素含氨基糖苷,RR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.26-0.72)。综合研究揭示了结果的可比性、干预措施的重复性、结果的定义和报告质量方面的挑战。报告指南的使用、干预措施之间的重复和结果定义的标准化将增加该领域初级研究的效用。
{"title":"Comparative efficacy of antimicrobial treatments in dairy cows at dry-off to prevent new intramammary infections during the dry period or clinical mastitis during early lactation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.","authors":"C B Winder, J M Sargeant, D Hu, C Wang, D F Kelton, S J Leblanc, T F Duffield, J Glanville, H Wood, K J Churchill, J Dunn, M D Bergevin, K Dawkins, S Meadows, B Deb, M Reist, C Moody, A M O'Connor","doi":"10.1017/S1466252319000239","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466252319000239","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted to assess the relative efficacy of antimicrobial therapy given to dairy cows at dry-off. Eligible studies were controlled trials assessing the use of antimicrobials compared to no treatment or an alternative treatment, and assessed one or more of the following outcomes: incidence of intramammary infection (IMI) at calving, incidence of IMI during the first 30 days in milk (DIM), or incidence of clinical mastitis during the first 30 DIM. Databases and conference proceedings were searched for relevant articles. The potential for bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 algorithm. From 3480 initially identified records, 45 trials had data extracted for one or more outcomes. Network meta-analysis was conducted for IMI at calving. The use of cephalosporins, cloxacillin, or penicillin with aminoglycoside significantly reduced the risk of new IMI at calving compared to non-treated controls (cephalosporins, RR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.23-0.65; cloxacillin, RR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.38-0.79; penicillin with aminoglycoside, RR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.26-0.72). Synthesis revealed challenges with a comparability of outcomes, replication of interventions, definitions of outcomes, and quality of reporting. The use of reporting guidelines, replication among interventions, and standardization of outcome definitions would increase the utility of primary research in this area.</p>","PeriodicalId":51313,"journal":{"name":"Animal Health Research Reviews","volume":"20 2","pages":"199-216"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1466252319000239","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"37663384","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-12-01DOI: 10.1017/S1466252319000173
Jan M Sargeant, Bhumika Deb, Michele D Bergevin, Katheryn Churchill, Kaitlyn Dawkins, Jennifer Dunn, Dapeng Hu, Carly Moody, Annette M O'Connor, Terri L O'Sullivan, Mark Reist, Chong Wang, Barbara Wilhelm, Charlotte B Winder
A systematic review and network meta-analysis (MA) was conducted to address the question, 'What is the efficacy of bacterial vaccines to prevent respiratory disease in swine?' Four electronic databases and the grey literature were searched to identify clinical trials in healthy swine where at least one intervention arm was a commercially available vaccine for one or more bacterial pathogens associated with respiratory disease in swine, including Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae, Actinobacillus pleuropneumonia, Actinobacillus suis, Bordetella bronchiseptica, Pasteurella multocida, Stretococcus suis, Haemophils parasuis, and Mycoplasma hyorhinis. To be eligible, trials had to measure at least one of the following outcomes: incidence of clinical morbidity, mortality, lung lesions, or total antibiotic use. There were 179 eligible trials identified in 146 publications. Network MA was undertaken for morbidity, mortality, and the presence or absence of non-specific lung lesions. However, there was not a sufficient body of research evaluating the same interventions and outcomes to allow a meaningful synthesis of the comparative efficacy of the vaccines. To build this body of research, additional rigor in trial design and analysis, and detailed reporting of trial methods and results are warranted.
{"title":"Efficacy of bacterial vaccines to prevent respiratory disease in swine: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.","authors":"Jan M Sargeant, Bhumika Deb, Michele D Bergevin, Katheryn Churchill, Kaitlyn Dawkins, Jennifer Dunn, Dapeng Hu, Carly Moody, Annette M O'Connor, Terri L O'Sullivan, Mark Reist, Chong Wang, Barbara Wilhelm, Charlotte B Winder","doi":"10.1017/S1466252319000173","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466252319000173","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A systematic review and network meta-analysis (MA) was conducted to address the question, 'What is the efficacy of bacterial vaccines to prevent respiratory disease in swine?' Four electronic databases and the grey literature were searched to identify clinical trials in healthy swine where at least one intervention arm was a commercially available vaccine for one or more bacterial pathogens associated with respiratory disease in swine, including Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae, Actinobacillus pleuropneumonia, Actinobacillus suis, Bordetella bronchiseptica, Pasteurella multocida, Stretococcus suis, Haemophils parasuis, and Mycoplasma hyorhinis. To be eligible, trials had to measure at least one of the following outcomes: incidence of clinical morbidity, mortality, lung lesions, or total antibiotic use. There were 179 eligible trials identified in 146 publications. Network MA was undertaken for morbidity, mortality, and the presence or absence of non-specific lung lesions. However, there was not a sufficient body of research evaluating the same interventions and outcomes to allow a meaningful synthesis of the comparative efficacy of the vaccines. To build this body of research, additional rigor in trial design and analysis, and detailed reporting of trial methods and results are warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":51313,"journal":{"name":"Animal Health Research Reviews","volume":"20 2","pages":"274-290"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1466252319000173","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"37663933","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-12-01DOI: 10.1017/S1466252319000264
Jan M Sargeant, Michele D Bergevin, Katheryn Churchill, Kaitlyn Dawkins, Bhumika Deb, Jennifer Dunn, Catherine M Logue, Anastasia Novy, Annette M O'Connor, Mark Reist, Charlotte B Winder
The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of antibiotics to prevent or control colibacillosis in broilers. Studies found eligible were conducted controlled trials in broilers that evaluated an antibiotic intervention, with at least one of the following outcomes: mortality, feed conversion ratio (FCR), condemnations at slaughter, or total antibiotic use. Four electronic databases plus the gray literature were searched. Abstracts were screened for eligibility and data were extracted from eligible trials. Risk of bias was evaluated.Seven trials reported eligible outcomes in a format that allowed data extraction; all reported results for FCR and one also reported mortality. Due to the heterogeneity in the interventions and outcomes evaluated, it was not feasible to conduct meta-analysis.Qualitatively, for FCR, comparisons between an antibiotic and an alternative product did not show a significant benefit for either. Some of the comparisons between an antibiotic and a no-treatment placebo showed a numerical benefit to antibiotics, but with wide confidence intervals. The risk-of-bias assessment revealed concerns with reporting of key trial features.The results of this review do not provide compelling evidence for or against the efficacy of antibiotics for the control of colibacillosis.
{"title":"The efficacy of antibiotics to control colibacillosis in broiler poultry: a systematic review.","authors":"Jan M Sargeant, Michele D Bergevin, Katheryn Churchill, Kaitlyn Dawkins, Bhumika Deb, Jennifer Dunn, Catherine M Logue, Anastasia Novy, Annette M O'Connor, Mark Reist, Charlotte B Winder","doi":"10.1017/S1466252319000264","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466252319000264","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of antibiotics to prevent or control colibacillosis in broilers. Studies found eligible were conducted controlled trials in broilers that evaluated an antibiotic intervention, with at least one of the following outcomes: mortality, feed conversion ratio (FCR), condemnations at slaughter, or total antibiotic use. Four electronic databases plus the gray literature were searched. Abstracts were screened for eligibility and data were extracted from eligible trials. Risk of bias was evaluated.Seven trials reported eligible outcomes in a format that allowed data extraction; all reported results for FCR and one also reported mortality. Due to the heterogeneity in the interventions and outcomes evaluated, it was not feasible to conduct meta-analysis.Qualitatively, for FCR, comparisons between an antibiotic and an alternative product did not show a significant benefit for either. Some of the comparisons between an antibiotic and a no-treatment placebo showed a numerical benefit to antibiotics, but with wide confidence intervals. The risk-of-bias assessment revealed concerns with reporting of key trial features.The results of this review do not provide compelling evidence for or against the efficacy of antibiotics for the control of colibacillosis.</p>","PeriodicalId":51313,"journal":{"name":"Animal Health Research Reviews","volume":"20 2","pages":"263-273"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1466252319000264","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"37663275","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-12-01DOI: 10.1017/S1466252320000031
A M O'Connor, D Hu, S C Totton, N Scott, C B Winder, B Wang, C Wang, J Glanville, H Wood, B White, R Larson, C Waldner, J M Sargeant
We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to determine the comparative efficacy of antibiotics used to control bovine respiratory disease (BRD) in beef cattle on feedlots. The information sources for the review were: MEDLINE®, MEDLINE In-Process and MEDLINE® Daily, AGRICOLA, Epub Ahead of Print, Cambridge Agricultural and Biological Index, Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science, the Proceedings of the American Association of Bovine Practitioners, World Buiatrics Conference, and the United States Food and Drug Administration Freedom of Information New Animal Drug Applications summaries. The eligible population was weaned beef cattle raised in intensive systems. The interventions of interest were injectable antibiotics used at the time the cattle arrived at the feedlot. The outcome of interest was the diagnosis of BRD within 45 days of arrival at the feedlot. The network meta-analysis included data from 46 studies and 167 study arms identified in the review. The results suggest that macrolides are the most effective antibiotics for the reduction of BRD incidence. Injectable oxytetracycline effectively controlled BRD compared with no antibiotics; however, it was less effective than macrolide treatment. Because oxytetracycline is already commonly used to prevent, control, and treat BRD in groups of feedlot cattle, the use of injectable oxytetracycline for BRD control might have advantages from an antibiotic stewardship perspective.
我们进行了一项系统综述和网络荟萃分析,以确定用于控制饲养场肉牛牛呼吸道疾病(BRD)的抗生素的比较疗效。综述的信息来源为:MEDLINE®、MEDLINE In-Process和MEDLINE®Daily、AGRICOLA、Epub Ahead of Print、剑桥农业与生物指数、科学引文索引、会议论文集引文索引-科学、美国牛从业者协会论文集、世界兽医学会议和美国食品和药物管理局信息自由新动物药物应用摘要。合格的人群是在集约化系统中饲养的断奶肉牛。感兴趣的干预措施是在牛到达饲养场时使用的注射抗生素。感兴趣的结果是在到达饲养场后45天内诊断出BRD。网络荟萃分析包括综述中确定的46项研究和167个研究部门的数据。结果表明,大环内酯类抗生素是降低BRD发病率最有效的抗生素。与不注射抗生素相比,注射土霉素可有效控制BRD;然而,它的效果不如大环内酯治疗。由于土霉素已被普遍用于预防、控制和治疗饲养场牛群中的BRD,从抗生素管理的角度来看,使用注射土霉素控制BRD可能具有优势。
{"title":"A systematic review and network meta-analysis of injectable antibiotic options for the control of bovine respiratory disease in the first 45 days post arrival at the feedlot.","authors":"A M O'Connor, D Hu, S C Totton, N Scott, C B Winder, B Wang, C Wang, J Glanville, H Wood, B White, R Larson, C Waldner, J M Sargeant","doi":"10.1017/S1466252320000031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466252320000031","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to determine the comparative efficacy of antibiotics used to control bovine respiratory disease (BRD) in beef cattle on feedlots. The information sources for the review were: MEDLINE®, MEDLINE In-Process and MEDLINE® Daily, AGRICOLA, Epub Ahead of Print, Cambridge Agricultural and Biological Index, Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science, the Proceedings of the American Association of Bovine Practitioners, World Buiatrics Conference, and the United States Food and Drug Administration Freedom of Information New Animal Drug Applications summaries. The eligible population was weaned beef cattle raised in intensive systems. The interventions of interest were injectable antibiotics used at the time the cattle arrived at the feedlot. The outcome of interest was the diagnosis of BRD within 45 days of arrival at the feedlot. The network meta-analysis included data from 46 studies and 167 study arms identified in the review. The results suggest that macrolides are the most effective antibiotics for the reduction of BRD incidence. Injectable oxytetracycline effectively controlled BRD compared with no antibiotics; however, it was less effective than macrolide treatment. Because oxytetracycline is already commonly used to prevent, control, and treat BRD in groups of feedlot cattle, the use of injectable oxytetracycline for BRD control might have advantages from an antibiotic stewardship perspective.</p>","PeriodicalId":51313,"journal":{"name":"Animal Health Research Reviews","volume":"20 2","pages":"163-181"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1466252320000031","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"37663381","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-12-01DOI: 10.1017/S1466252319000306
C B Winder, J M Sargeant, D F Kelton, S J Leblanc, T F Duffield, J Glanville, H Wood, K J Churchill, J Dunn, M D Bergevin, K Dawkins, S Meadows, A M O'Connor
A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to determine the efficacy of selective dry-cow antimicrobial therapy compared to blanket therapy (all quarters/all cows). Controlled trials were eligible if any of the following were assessed: incidence of clinical mastitis during the first 30 DIM, frequency of intramammary infection (IMI) at calving, or frequency of IMI during the first 30 DIM. From 3480 identified records, nine trials were data extracted for IMI at calving. There was an insufficient number of trials to conduct meta-analysis for the other outcomes. Risk of IMI at calving in selectively treated cows was higher than blanket therapy (RR = 1.34, 95% CI = 1.13, 1.16), but substantial heterogeneity was present (I2 = 58%). Subgroup analysis showed that, for trials using internal teat sealants, there was no difference in IMI risk at calving between groups, and no heterogeneity was present. For trials not using internal teat sealants, there was an increased risk in cows assigned to a selective dry-cow therapy protocol, compared to blanket treatment, with substantial heterogeneity in this subgroup. However, the small number of trials and heterogeneity in the subgroup without internal teat sealants suggests that the relative risk between treatments may differ from the determined point estimates based on other unmeasured factors.
进行了一项系统评价和荟萃分析,以确定选择性干奶牛抗菌治疗与毯子治疗(所有小区/所有奶牛)的疗效。如果评估了以下任何一项,对照试验都是合格的:前30个DIM期间临床乳腺炎的发病率,产犊时乳腺内感染(IMI)的频率,或前30个DIM期间IMI的频率。从3480个已确定的记录中,提取了9个试验产犊时IMI的数据。试验数量不足,无法对其他结果进行荟萃分析。选择性治疗奶牛产犊时发生IMI的风险高于毯子治疗(RR = 1.34, 95% CI = 1.13, 1.16),但存在很大的异质性(I2 = 58%)。亚组分析显示,对于使用内乳头密封剂的试验,产犊时IMI风险在两组之间没有差异,也不存在异质性。对于不使用内乳密封剂的试验,与毯式治疗相比,选择干奶牛治疗方案的奶牛风险增加,该亚组存在很大的异质性。然而,在没有使用内乳头密封剂的亚组中,试验数量少且异质性表明,治疗之间的相对风险可能与基于其他未测量因素的确定点估计不同。
{"title":"Comparative efficacy of blanket versus selective dry-cow therapy: a systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis.","authors":"C B Winder, J M Sargeant, D F Kelton, S J Leblanc, T F Duffield, J Glanville, H Wood, K J Churchill, J Dunn, M D Bergevin, K Dawkins, S Meadows, A M O'Connor","doi":"10.1017/S1466252319000306","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466252319000306","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to determine the efficacy of selective dry-cow antimicrobial therapy compared to blanket therapy (all quarters/all cows). Controlled trials were eligible if any of the following were assessed: incidence of clinical mastitis during the first 30 DIM, frequency of intramammary infection (IMI) at calving, or frequency of IMI during the first 30 DIM. From 3480 identified records, nine trials were data extracted for IMI at calving. There was an insufficient number of trials to conduct meta-analysis for the other outcomes. Risk of IMI at calving in selectively treated cows was higher than blanket therapy (RR = 1.34, 95% CI = 1.13, 1.16), but substantial heterogeneity was present (I2 = 58%). Subgroup analysis showed that, for trials using internal teat sealants, there was no difference in IMI risk at calving between groups, and no heterogeneity was present. For trials not using internal teat sealants, there was an increased risk in cows assigned to a selective dry-cow therapy protocol, compared to blanket treatment, with substantial heterogeneity in this subgroup. However, the small number of trials and heterogeneity in the subgroup without internal teat sealants suggests that the relative risk between treatments may differ from the determined point estimates based on other unmeasured factors.</p>","PeriodicalId":51313,"journal":{"name":"Animal Health Research Reviews","volume":"20 2","pages":"217-228"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1466252319000306","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"37663382","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-12-01DOI: 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
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.
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。
{"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, J M Sargeant, D Hu, C Wang, D F Kelton, M A Godkin, K J Churchill, A M O'Connor","doi":"10.1017/S1466252319000318","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466252319000318","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":2.5,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1466252319000318","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"37663387","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-12-01DOI: 10.1017/S1466252319000197
Rachael Vriezen, Jan M Sargeant, Ellen Vriezen, Mark Reist, Charlotte B Winder, Annette M O'Connor
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are used to summarize and interpret evidence for clinical decision-making in human health. The extent of the application of these methods in veterinary medicine and animal agriculture is unknown. The goal of this scoping study was to ascertain trends in the publication of systematic reviews and meta-analyses examining animal health, animal performance, and on-farm food safety. Online databases were searched for reviews published between 1993 and 2018 that focused on relevant outcomes in domestic livestock, companion animals, or wildlife species. In total 1787 titles and abstracts underwent data characterization. Dairy cattle, fish, and pigs were the most common target commodity groups. Few articles investigated both health and performance outcomes (only health: n = 418; only performance: n = 701; both health and performance: n = 103). Most of the reviews (67.6%, n = 1208/1787) described a meta-analysis but did not state in the title or abstract that a systematic review was also conducted, which is potentially problematic. Adherence to reporting guidelines is recommended for all systematic reviews and meta-analyses. For research areas with many reviews, an evidence repository is recommended. For less well-reviewed areas, additional investigation may be necessary to identify the reasons for the lack of synthesis research.
{"title":"Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in animal health, performance, and on-farm food safety: a scoping review.","authors":"Rachael Vriezen, Jan M Sargeant, Ellen Vriezen, Mark Reist, Charlotte B Winder, Annette M O'Connor","doi":"10.1017/S1466252319000197","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466252319000197","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are used to summarize and interpret evidence for clinical decision-making in human health. The extent of the application of these methods in veterinary medicine and animal agriculture is unknown. The goal of this scoping study was to ascertain trends in the publication of systematic reviews and meta-analyses examining animal health, animal performance, and on-farm food safety. Online databases were searched for reviews published between 1993 and 2018 that focused on relevant outcomes in domestic livestock, companion animals, or wildlife species. In total 1787 titles and abstracts underwent data characterization. Dairy cattle, fish, and pigs were the most common target commodity groups. Few articles investigated both health and performance outcomes (only health: n = 418; only performance: n = 701; both health and performance: n = 103). Most of the reviews (67.6%, n = 1208/1787) described a meta-analysis but did not state in the title or abstract that a systematic review was also conducted, which is potentially problematic. Adherence to reporting guidelines is recommended for all systematic reviews and meta-analyses. For research areas with many reviews, an evidence repository is recommended. For less well-reviewed areas, additional investigation may be necessary to identify the reasons for the lack of synthesis research.</p>","PeriodicalId":51313,"journal":{"name":"Animal Health Research Reviews","volume":"20 2","pages":"116-127"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1466252319000197","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"37662735","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}