Use of antimicrobials in the treatment of calf diarrhea: a systematic review.

IF 4.3 2区 农林科学 Q1 VETERINARY SCIENCES
C Bernal-Córdoba, R Branco-Lopes, L Latorre-Segura, M de Barros-Abreu, E D Fausak, N Silva-Del-Río
{"title":"Use of antimicrobials in the treatment of calf diarrhea: a systematic review.","authors":"C Bernal-Córdoba,&nbsp;R Branco-Lopes,&nbsp;L Latorre-Segura,&nbsp;M de Barros-Abreu,&nbsp;E D Fausak,&nbsp;N Silva-Del-Río","doi":"10.1017/S1466252322000032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the scientific literature evaluating the efficacy and comparative efficacy of antimicrobials (AMs) for the treatment of diarrhea in calves. Eligible studies were non- and randomized controlled trials evaluating an AM intervention against a positive and negative control, with at least one of the following outcomes: fecal consistency score, fever, dehydration, appetite, attitude, weight gain, and mortality. Four electronic databases were searched. Titles and abstracts (three reviewers) and full texts (two reviewers) were screened. A total of 2899 studies were retrieved; 11 studies met the inclusion criteria. The risk of bias was assessed. Most studies had incomplete reporting of trial design and results. Eight studies compared AMs to a negative control (placebo or no treatment). Among eligible studies, the most common outcomes reported were diarrhea severity (<i>n</i> = 6) and mortality (<i>n</i> = 6). Eligible studies evaluated very different interventions and outcomes; thus, a meta-analysis was not performed. The risk of bias assessment revealed concerns with reporting of key trial features, including disease and outcome definitions. Insufficient evidence is available in the scientific literature to assess the efficacy of AMs in treating calf diarrhea.</p>","PeriodicalId":51313,"journal":{"name":"Animal Health Research Reviews","volume":"23 2","pages":"101-112"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Animal Health Research Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466252322000032","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: 0

Abstract

The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the scientific literature evaluating the efficacy and comparative efficacy of antimicrobials (AMs) for the treatment of diarrhea in calves. Eligible studies were non- and randomized controlled trials evaluating an AM intervention against a positive and negative control, with at least one of the following outcomes: fecal consistency score, fever, dehydration, appetite, attitude, weight gain, and mortality. Four electronic databases were searched. Titles and abstracts (three reviewers) and full texts (two reviewers) were screened. A total of 2899 studies were retrieved; 11 studies met the inclusion criteria. The risk of bias was assessed. Most studies had incomplete reporting of trial design and results. Eight studies compared AMs to a negative control (placebo or no treatment). Among eligible studies, the most common outcomes reported were diarrhea severity (n = 6) and mortality (n = 6). Eligible studies evaluated very different interventions and outcomes; thus, a meta-analysis was not performed. The risk of bias assessment revealed concerns with reporting of key trial features, including disease and outcome definitions. Insufficient evidence is available in the scientific literature to assess the efficacy of AMs in treating calf diarrhea.

使用抗菌剂治疗小牛腹泻:系统综述。
本研究的目的是对科学文献进行系统综述,评估抗菌剂(AMs)治疗犊牛腹泻的疗效和比较疗效。符合条件的研究是评估AM干预对阳性和阴性对照的非随机对照试验,至少具有以下结果之一:粪便一致性评分、发烧、脱水、食欲、态度、体重增加和死亡率。检索了四个电子数据库。筛选题目、摘要(3名审稿人)和全文(2名审稿人)。共检索2899项研究;11项研究符合纳入标准。评估偏倚风险。大多数研究对试验设计和结果的报告不完整。8项研究将AMs与阴性对照(安慰剂或未治疗)进行了比较。在符合条件的研究中,最常见的结果报告是腹泻严重程度(n = 6)和死亡率(n = 6)。符合条件的研究评估了非常不同的干预措施和结果;因此,没有进行meta分析。偏倚风险评估揭示了对关键试验特征(包括疾病和结果定义)报告的关注。科学文献中没有足够的证据来评估AMs治疗小牛腹泻的疗效。
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