A systematic review of the efficacy of antibiotics for the prevention of swine respiratory disease.

IF 4.3 2区 农林科学 Q1 VETERINARY SCIENCES
Jan M Sargeant, Michele D Bergevin, Katheryn Churchill, Kaitlyn Dawkins, Bhumika Deb, Jennifer Dunn, Dapeng Hu, Carly Moody, Annette M O'Connor, Terri L O'Sullivan, Mark Reist, Chong Wang, Barbara Wilhelm, Charlotte B Winder
{"title":"A systematic review of the efficacy of antibiotics for the prevention of swine respiratory disease.","authors":"Jan M Sargeant,&nbsp;Michele D Bergevin,&nbsp;Katheryn Churchill,&nbsp;Kaitlyn Dawkins,&nbsp;Bhumika Deb,&nbsp;Jennifer Dunn,&nbsp;Dapeng Hu,&nbsp;Carly Moody,&nbsp;Annette M O'Connor,&nbsp;Terri L O'Sullivan,&nbsp;Mark Reist,&nbsp;Chong Wang,&nbsp;Barbara Wilhelm,&nbsp;Charlotte B Winder","doi":"10.1017/S1466252319000185","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Prevention and control of respiratory disease is a major contributor to antibiotic use in swine. A systematic review was conducted to address the question, 'What is the comparative efficacy of antimicrobials for the prevention of swine respiratory disease?' Eligible studies were controlled trials published in English evaluating prophylactic antibiotics in swine, where clinical morbidity, mortality, or total antibiotic use was assessed. Four databases and the gray literature were searched for relevant articles. Two reviewers working independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility followed by full-text articles, and then extracted data and evaluated risk of bias for eligible trials. There were 44 eligible trials from 36 publications. Clinical morbidity was evaluated in eight trials where antibiotics were used in nursery pigs and 10 trials where antibiotics were used in grower pigs. Mortality was measured in 22 trials in nursery pigs and 12 trials in grower pigs. There was heterogeneity in the antibiotic interventions and comparisons published in the literature; thus, there was insufficient evidence to allow quantification of the efficacy, or relative efficacy, of antibiotic interventions. Concerns related to statistical non-independence and quality of reporting were noted in the included trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":51313,"journal":{"name":"Animal Health Research Reviews","volume":"20 2","pages":"291-304"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1466252319000185","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Animal Health Research Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466252319000185","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

Prevention and control of respiratory disease is a major contributor to antibiotic use in swine. A systematic review was conducted to address the question, 'What is the comparative efficacy of antimicrobials for the prevention of swine respiratory disease?' Eligible studies were controlled trials published in English evaluating prophylactic antibiotics in swine, where clinical morbidity, mortality, or total antibiotic use was assessed. Four databases and the gray literature were searched for relevant articles. Two reviewers working independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility followed by full-text articles, and then extracted data and evaluated risk of bias for eligible trials. There were 44 eligible trials from 36 publications. Clinical morbidity was evaluated in eight trials where antibiotics were used in nursery pigs and 10 trials where antibiotics were used in grower pigs. Mortality was measured in 22 trials in nursery pigs and 12 trials in grower pigs. There was heterogeneity in the antibiotic interventions and comparisons published in the literature; thus, there was insufficient evidence to allow quantification of the efficacy, or relative efficacy, of antibiotic interventions. Concerns related to statistical non-independence and quality of reporting were noted in the included trials.

抗生素预防猪呼吸道疾病疗效的系统综述。
预防和控制呼吸道疾病是猪使用抗生素的主要原因。我们进行了一项系统综述,以解决“抗菌剂在预防猪呼吸道疾病方面的相对功效是什么?”符合条件的研究是用英文发表的对照试验,评估猪的预防性抗生素,评估临床发病率、死亡率或抗生素总使用情况。在四个数据库和灰色文献中检索相关文章。两位审稿人独立地筛选标题和摘要,然后是全文文章,然后提取数据并评估符合条件的试验的偏倚风险。来自36份出版物的44项符合条件的试验。对苗圃猪使用抗生素的8个试验和生长猪使用抗生素的10个试验进行了临床发病率评估。在22个苗圃猪试验和12个生长猪试验中测量了死亡率。在抗生素干预和文献发表的比较中存在异质性;因此,没有足够的证据来量化抗生素干预的有效性或相对有效性。在纳入的试验中注意到与统计不独立性和报告质量有关的问题。
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
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.
×
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