Efficacy of bacterial vaccines to prevent respiratory disease in swine: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

IF 4.3 2区 农林科学 Q1 VETERINARY SCIENCES
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
{"title":"Efficacy of bacterial vaccines to prevent respiratory disease in swine: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.","authors":"Jan M Sargeant,&nbsp;Bhumika Deb,&nbsp;Michele D Bergevin,&nbsp;Katheryn Churchill,&nbsp;Kaitlyn Dawkins,&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/S1466252319000173","DOIUrl":null,"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":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1466252319000173","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Animal Health Research Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466252319000173","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 (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.

细菌疫苗预防猪呼吸道疾病的有效性:系统综述和网络荟萃分析。
一项系统综述和网络荟萃分析(MA)被用于解决这个问题,“细菌疫苗对猪呼吸道疾病的预防效果如何?”检索了四个电子数据库和灰色文献,以确定在健康猪中进行的临床试验,其中至少有一个干预组是市购疫苗,用于治疗与猪呼吸道疾病相关的一种或多种细菌病原体,包括肺炎支原体、胸膜肺炎放线杆菌、猪放线杆菌、支气管脓毒杆菌、多杀性巴氏杆菌、猪链球菌、副猪嗜血杆菌和猪支原体。为了符合条件,试验必须测量以下结果中的至少一项:临床发病率、死亡率、肺部病变或抗生素总使用。146篇出版物中有179项符合条件的试验。网络MA对发病率、死亡率和有无非特异性肺病变进行了评估。然而,没有足够的研究机构对相同的干预措施和结果进行评估,无法对疫苗的相对功效进行有意义的综合。为了建立这一研究体系,必须在试验设计和分析方面更加严格,并详细报告试验方法和结果。
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