产仔管理策略预防肉鸡发病率和死亡率的有效性:系统综述和网络荟萃分析。

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, Catherine M Logue, Shannon Meadows, Carly Moody, Anastasia Novy, Annette M O'Connor, Mark Reist, Yuko Sato, Chong Wang, Charlotte B Winder
{"title":"产仔管理策略预防肉鸡发病率和死亡率的有效性:系统综述和网络荟萃分析。","authors":"Jan M Sargeant,&nbsp;Michele D Bergevin,&nbsp;Katheryn Churchill,&nbsp;Kaitlyn Dawkins,&nbsp;Bhumika Deb,&nbsp;Jennifer Dunn,&nbsp;Dapeng Hu,&nbsp;Catherine M Logue,&nbsp;Shannon Meadows,&nbsp;Carly Moody,&nbsp;Anastasia Novy,&nbsp;Annette M O'Connor,&nbsp;Mark Reist,&nbsp;Yuko Sato,&nbsp;Chong Wang,&nbsp;Charlotte B Winder","doi":"10.1017/S1466252319000227","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted to address the question, 'What is the efficacy of litter management strategies to reduce morbidity, mortality, condemnation at slaughter, or total antibiotic use in broilers?' Eligible studies were clinical trials published in English evaluating the efficacy of litter management in broilers on morbidity, condemnations at slaughter, mortality, or total antibiotic use. Multiple databases and two conference proceedings were searched for relevant literature. After relevance screening and data extraction, there were 50 trials evaluating litter type, 22 trials evaluating litter additives, 10 trials comparing fresh to re-used litter, and six trials evaluating floor type. NMAs were conducted for mortality (61 trials) and for the presence or absence of footpad lesions (15 trials). There were no differences in mortality among the litter types, floor types, or additives. For footpad lesions, peat moss appeared beneficial compared to straw, based on a small number of comparisons. In a pairwise meta-analysis, there was no association between fresh versus used litter on the risk of mortality, although there was considerable heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 66%). There was poor reporting of key design features in many studies, and analyses rarely accounted for non-independence of observations within flocks.</p>","PeriodicalId":51313,"journal":{"name":"Animal Health Research Reviews","volume":"20 2","pages":"247-262"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1466252319000227","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The efficacy of litter management strategies to prevent morbidity and mortality in broiler chickens: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Jan M Sargeant,&nbsp;Michele D Bergevin,&nbsp;Katheryn Churchill,&nbsp;Kaitlyn Dawkins,&nbsp;Bhumika Deb,&nbsp;Jennifer Dunn,&nbsp;Dapeng Hu,&nbsp;Catherine M Logue,&nbsp;Shannon Meadows,&nbsp;Carly Moody,&nbsp;Anastasia Novy,&nbsp;Annette M O'Connor,&nbsp;Mark Reist,&nbsp;Yuko Sato,&nbsp;Chong Wang,&nbsp;Charlotte B Winder\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S1466252319000227\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted to address the question, 'What is the efficacy of litter management strategies to reduce morbidity, mortality, condemnation at slaughter, or total antibiotic use in broilers?' Eligible studies were clinical trials published in English evaluating the efficacy of litter management in broilers on morbidity, condemnations at slaughter, mortality, or total antibiotic use. Multiple databases and two conference proceedings were searched for relevant literature. After relevance screening and data extraction, there were 50 trials evaluating litter type, 22 trials evaluating litter additives, 10 trials comparing fresh to re-used litter, and six trials evaluating floor type. NMAs were conducted for mortality (61 trials) and for the presence or absence of footpad lesions (15 trials). There were no differences in mortality among the litter types, floor types, or additives. For footpad lesions, peat moss appeared beneficial compared to straw, based on a small number of comparisons. In a pairwise meta-analysis, there was no association between fresh versus used litter on the risk of mortality, although there was considerable heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 66%). There was poor reporting of key design features in many studies, and analyses rarely accounted for non-independence of observations within flocks.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Animal Health Research Reviews\",\"volume\":\"20 2\",\"pages\":\"247-262\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1466252319000227\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Animal Health Research Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466252319000227\",\"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/S1466252319000227","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: 5

摘要

我们进行了一项系统综述和网络荟萃分析(NMA)来解决这个问题,“产仔管理策略在降低肉鸡发病率、死亡率、屠宰时的死亡率或抗生素总使用量方面的功效如何?”符合条件的研究是用英文发表的临床试验,评估肉鸡产仔管理对发病率、屠宰谴责、死亡率或总抗生素使用的有效性。检索了多个数据库和两个会议论文集,以查找相关文献。经过相关性筛选和数据提取,有50项试验评估凋落物类型,22项试验评估凋落物添加剂,10项试验比较新鲜凋落物和再利用凋落物,6项试验评估地板类型。对死亡率(61项试验)和足部病变的存在与否(15项试验)进行了nma。不同凋落物类型、地板类型和添加剂的死亡率没有差异。根据少量的比较,对于脚垫病变,泥炭苔藓与稻草相比似乎是有益的。在两两荟萃分析中,尽管研究之间存在相当大的异质性(I2 = 66%),但未发现新鲜和用过的落叶与死亡风险之间存在关联。在许多研究中,对关键设计特征的报道很差,分析很少考虑到群内观察的非独立性。
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 litter management strategies to prevent morbidity and mortality in broiler chickens: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted to address the question, 'What is the efficacy of litter management strategies to reduce morbidity, mortality, condemnation at slaughter, or total antibiotic use in broilers?' Eligible studies were clinical trials published in English evaluating the efficacy of litter management in broilers on morbidity, condemnations at slaughter, mortality, or total antibiotic use. Multiple databases and two conference proceedings were searched for relevant literature. After relevance screening and data extraction, there were 50 trials evaluating litter type, 22 trials evaluating litter additives, 10 trials comparing fresh to re-used litter, and six trials evaluating floor type. NMAs were conducted for mortality (61 trials) and for the presence or absence of footpad lesions (15 trials). There were no differences in mortality among the litter types, floor types, or additives. For footpad lesions, peat moss appeared beneficial compared to straw, based on a small number of comparisons. In a pairwise meta-analysis, there was no association between fresh versus used litter on the risk of mortality, although there was considerable heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 66%). There was poor reporting of key design features in many studies, and analyses rarely accounted for non-independence of observations within flocks.

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