Comparative effectiveness of interventions for treating interdigital necrobacillosis in cattle: A network meta-analysis

IF 0.6 4区 农林科学 Q3 VETERINARY SCIENCES
MA Torehanov, ZK Tulemissova, A. Ibazhanova, E. Rafikova, ‪B Muzapbarov, E. Korabaev, ST Siyabekov
{"title":"Comparative effectiveness of interventions for treating interdigital necrobacillosis in cattle: A network meta-analysis","authors":"MA Torehanov, ZK Tulemissova, A. Ibazhanova, E. Rafikova, ‪B Muzapbarov, E. Korabaev, ST Siyabekov","doi":"10.17221/232/2020-vetmed","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this study was to comparatively evaluate the efficacy of different antimicrobial agents against interdigital necrobacillosis (IN) in cattle to identify the treatment with the greatest benefit. A network meta-analysis was used to synthesise empirical results from randomised controlled trials. Four studies with five interventions for 565 animals were included. The meta-analysis found no significant differences between the risk ratios for the antimicrobials versus placebo. However, ceftiofur sodium administered intramuscularly at a dose of 1.0 µg/kg body weight every 24 h for 3 days showed a better clinical response than 6.6 µg of oxytetracycline, 2.5 µg of tulathromycin, the placebo and 0.1 µg of ceftiofur sodium. The results show the best efficacy for 6.6 µg of oxytetracycline and 1.0 µg of ceftiofur sodium. Nevertheless, the latter is likely to be superior to oxytetracycline in terms of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties. Thus, 1.0 µg of ceftiofur sodium appears to provide the best therapeutic activity against IN in cattle. Further well-designed studies are required.","PeriodicalId":23532,"journal":{"name":"Veterinarni Medicina","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Veterinarni Medicina","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17221/232/2020-vetmed","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The aim of this study was to comparatively evaluate the efficacy of different antimicrobial agents against interdigital necrobacillosis (IN) in cattle to identify the treatment with the greatest benefit. A network meta-analysis was used to synthesise empirical results from randomised controlled trials. Four studies with five interventions for 565 animals were included. The meta-analysis found no significant differences between the risk ratios for the antimicrobials versus placebo. However, ceftiofur sodium administered intramuscularly at a dose of 1.0 µg/kg body weight every 24 h for 3 days showed a better clinical response than 6.6 µg of oxytetracycline, 2.5 µg of tulathromycin, the placebo and 0.1 µg of ceftiofur sodium. The results show the best efficacy for 6.6 µg of oxytetracycline and 1.0 µg of ceftiofur sodium. Nevertheless, the latter is likely to be superior to oxytetracycline in terms of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties. Thus, 1.0 µg of ceftiofur sodium appears to provide the best therapeutic activity against IN in cattle. Further well-designed studies are required.
干预措施治疗牛指间坏死杆菌病的比较有效性:网络荟萃分析
本研究的目的是比较评价不同抗菌剂对牛指间坏死杆菌病(IN)的疗效,以确定效益最大的治疗方法。网络荟萃分析用于综合随机对照试验的经验结果。纳入了四项研究,对565只动物进行了五次干预。荟萃分析发现,抗菌药物与安慰剂的风险比没有显著差异。然而,与6.6µg土霉素、2.5µg土霉素、安慰剂和0.1µg头孢噻呋钠相比,每24小时肌肉注射1.0µg/kg体重的头孢噻呋钠3天的临床疗效更好。结果显示,6.6µg土霉素和1.0µg头孢噻呋钠的疗效最好。然而,后者在药效学和药代动力学特性方面可能优于土霉素。因此,1.0µg头孢噻呋钠似乎对牛的IN具有最佳的治疗活性。还需要进一步精心设计的研究。
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
Veterinarni Medicina
Veterinarni Medicina Veterinary Sciences-兽医学
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
62
审稿时长
18-36 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal Veterinarni Medicina publishes in English original papers, short communications, critical reviews and case reports from all fields of veterinary and biomedical sciences.
×
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