抗生素控制肉鸡大肠杆菌病的疗效:系统综述。

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, Catherine M Logue, Anastasia Novy, Annette M O'Connor, Mark Reist, Charlotte B Winder
{"title":"抗生素控制肉鸡大肠杆菌病的疗效:系统综述。","authors":"Jan M Sargeant,&nbsp;Michele D Bergevin,&nbsp;Katheryn Churchill,&nbsp;Kaitlyn Dawkins,&nbsp;Bhumika Deb,&nbsp;Jennifer Dunn,&nbsp;Catherine M Logue,&nbsp;Anastasia Novy,&nbsp;Annette M O'Connor,&nbsp;Mark Reist,&nbsp;Charlotte B Winder","doi":"10.1017/S1466252319000264","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of antibiotics to prevent or control colibacillosis in broilers. Studies found eligible were conducted controlled trials in broilers that evaluated an antibiotic intervention, with at least one of the following outcomes: mortality, feed conversion ratio (FCR), condemnations at slaughter, or total antibiotic use. Four electronic databases plus the gray literature were searched. Abstracts were screened for eligibility and data were extracted from eligible trials. Risk of bias was evaluated.Seven trials reported eligible outcomes in a format that allowed data extraction; all reported results for FCR and one also reported mortality. Due to the heterogeneity in the interventions and outcomes evaluated, it was not feasible to conduct meta-analysis.Qualitatively, for FCR, comparisons between an antibiotic and an alternative product did not show a significant benefit for either. Some of the comparisons between an antibiotic and a no-treatment placebo showed a numerical benefit to antibiotics, but with wide confidence intervals. The risk-of-bias assessment revealed concerns with reporting of key trial features.The results of this review do not provide compelling evidence for or against the efficacy of antibiotics for the control of colibacillosis.</p>","PeriodicalId":51313,"journal":{"name":"Animal Health Research Reviews","volume":"20 2","pages":"263-273"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1466252319000264","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The efficacy of antibiotics to control colibacillosis in broiler poultry: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Jan M Sargeant,&nbsp;Michele D Bergevin,&nbsp;Katheryn Churchill,&nbsp;Kaitlyn Dawkins,&nbsp;Bhumika Deb,&nbsp;Jennifer Dunn,&nbsp;Catherine M Logue,&nbsp;Anastasia Novy,&nbsp;Annette M O'Connor,&nbsp;Mark Reist,&nbsp;Charlotte B Winder\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S1466252319000264\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of antibiotics to prevent or control colibacillosis in broilers. Studies found eligible were conducted controlled trials in broilers that evaluated an antibiotic intervention, with at least one of the following outcomes: mortality, feed conversion ratio (FCR), condemnations at slaughter, or total antibiotic use. Four electronic databases plus the gray literature were searched. Abstracts were screened for eligibility and data were extracted from eligible trials. Risk of bias was evaluated.Seven trials reported eligible outcomes in a format that allowed data extraction; all reported results for FCR and one also reported mortality. Due to the heterogeneity in the interventions and outcomes evaluated, it was not feasible to conduct meta-analysis.Qualitatively, for FCR, comparisons between an antibiotic and an alternative product did not show a significant benefit for either. Some of the comparisons between an antibiotic and a no-treatment placebo showed a numerical benefit to antibiotics, but with wide confidence intervals. The risk-of-bias assessment revealed concerns with reporting of key trial features.The results of this review do not provide compelling evidence for or against the efficacy of antibiotics for the control of colibacillosis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Animal Health Research Reviews\",\"volume\":\"20 2\",\"pages\":\"263-273\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1466252319000264\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Animal Health Research Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466252319000264\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Animal Health Research Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466252319000264","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: 13

摘要

本系统综述的目的是评价抗生素预防或控制肉鸡大肠杆菌病的疗效。研究人员在肉鸡中进行了符合条件的对照试验,评估抗生素干预,至少有以下一项结果:死亡率、饲料转化率(FCR)、屠宰时的谴责或抗生素的总使用。检索了四个电子数据库和灰色文献。筛选摘要的合格性,并从符合条件的试验中提取数据。评估偏倚风险。7项试验报告了符合条件的结果,其格式允许提取数据;所有报告了FCR的结果,其中一个也报告了死亡率。由于干预措施和评估结果的异质性,进行meta分析是不可行的。定性地说,对于FCR,抗生素和替代产品之间的比较都没有显示出显著的益处。抗生素和无治疗安慰剂之间的一些比较显示抗生素在数值上的益处,但置信区间很宽。偏倚风险评估揭示了对关键试验特征报告的关注。本综述的结果并没有提供令人信服的证据支持或反对抗生素控制大肠杆菌病的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The efficacy of antibiotics to control colibacillosis in broiler poultry: a systematic review.

The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of antibiotics to prevent or control colibacillosis in broilers. Studies found eligible were conducted controlled trials in broilers that evaluated an antibiotic intervention, with at least one of the following outcomes: mortality, feed conversion ratio (FCR), condemnations at slaughter, or total antibiotic use. Four electronic databases plus the gray literature were searched. Abstracts were screened for eligibility and data were extracted from eligible trials. Risk of bias was evaluated.Seven trials reported eligible outcomes in a format that allowed data extraction; all reported results for FCR and one also reported mortality. Due to the heterogeneity in the interventions and outcomes evaluated, it was not feasible to conduct meta-analysis.Qualitatively, for FCR, comparisons between an antibiotic and an alternative product did not show a significant benefit for either. Some of the comparisons between an antibiotic and a no-treatment placebo showed a numerical benefit to antibiotics, but with wide confidence intervals. The risk-of-bias assessment revealed concerns with reporting of key trial features.The results of this review do not provide compelling evidence for or against the efficacy of antibiotics for the control of colibacillosis.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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