In dogs with snakebites does the use of antimicrobials compared to no antimicrobials reduce incidence of wound infection?

M. Ballman, David S. Messina
{"title":"In dogs with snakebites does the use of antimicrobials compared to no antimicrobials reduce incidence of wound infection?","authors":"M. Ballman, David S. Messina","doi":"10.18849/ve.v8i3.513","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PICO question\nIn dogs with snakebites does the use of antimicrobials compared to no antimicrobials reduce incidence of wound infection?\n \nClinical bottom line\nCategory of research\nTreatment.\nNumber and type of study designs reviewed\nSeven case series.\nStrength of evidence\nWeak.\nOutcomes reported\nThree studies looked at the incidence of wound infection in envenomated dogs, three compared antimicrobial use to mortality and one compared other outcomes, such as time in hospital. The incidence of wound infection was low in the studies and overall antimicrobials seemed to have no significant effect on outcomes such as survival or wound infection. Therefore, the routine use of antimicrobials for snakebite treatment is not supported by the results, however further studies are required to provide conclusive evidence.\nConclusion\nThere is currently insufficient evidence from literature to either support or reject the use of antimicrobials in the treatment of snakebites.\n \nHow to apply this evidence in practice\nThe application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources.\nKnowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care.","PeriodicalId":257905,"journal":{"name":"Veterinary Evidence","volume":"58 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Veterinary Evidence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18849/ve.v8i3.513","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

PICO question In dogs with snakebites does the use of antimicrobials compared to no antimicrobials reduce incidence of wound infection?   Clinical bottom line Category of research Treatment. Number and type of study designs reviewed Seven case series. Strength of evidence Weak. Outcomes reported Three studies looked at the incidence of wound infection in envenomated dogs, three compared antimicrobial use to mortality and one compared other outcomes, such as time in hospital. The incidence of wound infection was low in the studies and overall antimicrobials seemed to have no significant effect on outcomes such as survival or wound infection. Therefore, the routine use of antimicrobials for snakebite treatment is not supported by the results, however further studies are required to provide conclusive evidence. Conclusion There is currently insufficient evidence from literature to either support or reject the use of antimicrobials in the treatment of snakebites.   How to apply this evidence in practice The application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources. Knowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care.
在被蛇咬伤的狗中,与不使用抗菌剂相比,使用抗菌剂是否能减少伤口感染的发生率?
在被蛇咬伤的狗中,与不使用抗菌剂相比,使用抗菌剂是否能减少伤口感染的发生率?临床底线研究类别治疗。研究设计的数量和类型回顾了七个病例系列。证据强度:弱。结果报告:三项研究调查了中毒狗的伤口感染发生率,三项研究比较了抗菌药物的使用与死亡率,另一项研究比较了其他结果,如住院时间。在这些研究中,伤口感染的发生率很低,总体抗菌药物似乎对生存或伤口感染等结果没有显著影响。因此,结果不支持常规使用抗微生物药物治疗蛇咬伤,但需要进一步的研究来提供确凿的证据。结论目前文献证据不足以支持或反对使用抗微生物药物治疗蛇咬伤。如何将证据应用于实践应考虑多种因素,不限于:个人临床专业知识、患者的情况和所有者的价值观、您工作的国家、地点或诊所、您面前的个案、治疗方法和资源的可用性。知识摘要是帮助加强或告知决策的资源。他们不会凌驾于从业者的责任或判断之上,去做对他们照顾的动物最好的事情。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信