毛毯疗法与选择性干牛疗法的疗效比较:系统回顾和两两荟萃分析。

IF 4.3 2区 农林科学 Q1 VETERINARY SCIENCES
C B Winder, J M Sargeant, D F Kelton, S J Leblanc, T F Duffield, J Glanville, H Wood, K J Churchill, J Dunn, M D Bergevin, K Dawkins, S Meadows, A M O'Connor
{"title":"毛毯疗法与选择性干牛疗法的疗效比较:系统回顾和两两荟萃分析。","authors":"C B Winder,&nbsp;J M Sargeant,&nbsp;D F Kelton,&nbsp;S J Leblanc,&nbsp;T F Duffield,&nbsp;J Glanville,&nbsp;H Wood,&nbsp;K J Churchill,&nbsp;J Dunn,&nbsp;M D Bergevin,&nbsp;K Dawkins,&nbsp;S Meadows,&nbsp;A M O'Connor","doi":"10.1017/S1466252319000306","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to determine the efficacy of selective dry-cow antimicrobial therapy compared to blanket therapy (all quarters/all cows). Controlled trials were eligible if any of the following were assessed: incidence of clinical mastitis during the first 30 DIM, frequency of intramammary infection (IMI) at calving, or frequency of IMI during the first 30 DIM. From 3480 identified records, nine trials were data extracted for IMI at calving. There was an insufficient number of trials to conduct meta-analysis for the other outcomes. Risk of IMI at calving in selectively treated cows was higher than blanket therapy (RR = 1.34, 95% CI = 1.13, 1.16), but substantial heterogeneity was present (I2 = 58%). Subgroup analysis showed that, for trials using internal teat sealants, there was no difference in IMI risk at calving between groups, and no heterogeneity was present. For trials not using internal teat sealants, there was an increased risk in cows assigned to a selective dry-cow therapy protocol, compared to blanket treatment, with substantial heterogeneity in this subgroup. However, the small number of trials and heterogeneity in the subgroup without internal teat sealants suggests that the relative risk between treatments may differ from the determined point estimates based on other unmeasured factors.</p>","PeriodicalId":51313,"journal":{"name":"Animal Health Research Reviews","volume":"20 2","pages":"217-228"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1466252319000306","citationCount":"27","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative efficacy of blanket versus selective dry-cow therapy: a systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"C B Winder,&nbsp;J M Sargeant,&nbsp;D F Kelton,&nbsp;S J Leblanc,&nbsp;T F Duffield,&nbsp;J Glanville,&nbsp;H Wood,&nbsp;K J Churchill,&nbsp;J Dunn,&nbsp;M D Bergevin,&nbsp;K Dawkins,&nbsp;S Meadows,&nbsp;A M O'Connor\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S1466252319000306\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to determine the efficacy of selective dry-cow antimicrobial therapy compared to blanket therapy (all quarters/all cows). Controlled trials were eligible if any of the following were assessed: incidence of clinical mastitis during the first 30 DIM, frequency of intramammary infection (IMI) at calving, or frequency of IMI during the first 30 DIM. From 3480 identified records, nine trials were data extracted for IMI at calving. There was an insufficient number of trials to conduct meta-analysis for the other outcomes. Risk of IMI at calving in selectively treated cows was higher than blanket therapy (RR = 1.34, 95% CI = 1.13, 1.16), but substantial heterogeneity was present (I2 = 58%). Subgroup analysis showed that, for trials using internal teat sealants, there was no difference in IMI risk at calving between groups, and no heterogeneity was present. For trials not using internal teat sealants, there was an increased risk in cows assigned to a selective dry-cow therapy protocol, compared to blanket treatment, with substantial heterogeneity in this subgroup. However, the small number of trials and heterogeneity in the subgroup without internal teat sealants suggests that the relative risk between treatments may differ from the determined point estimates based on other unmeasured factors.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Animal Health Research Reviews\",\"volume\":\"20 2\",\"pages\":\"217-228\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1466252319000306\",\"citationCount\":\"27\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Animal Health Research Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466252319000306\",\"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/S1466252319000306","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: 27

摘要

进行了一项系统评价和荟萃分析,以确定选择性干奶牛抗菌治疗与毯子治疗(所有小区/所有奶牛)的疗效。如果评估了以下任何一项,对照试验都是合格的:前30个DIM期间临床乳腺炎的发病率,产犊时乳腺内感染(IMI)的频率,或前30个DIM期间IMI的频率。从3480个已确定的记录中,提取了9个试验产犊时IMI的数据。试验数量不足,无法对其他结果进行荟萃分析。选择性治疗奶牛产犊时发生IMI的风险高于毯子治疗(RR = 1.34, 95% CI = 1.13, 1.16),但存在很大的异质性(I2 = 58%)。亚组分析显示,对于使用内乳头密封剂的试验,产犊时IMI风险在两组之间没有差异,也不存在异质性。对于不使用内乳密封剂的试验,与毯式治疗相比,选择干奶牛治疗方案的奶牛风险增加,该亚组存在很大的异质性。然而,在没有使用内乳头密封剂的亚组中,试验数量少且异质性表明,治疗之间的相对风险可能与基于其他未测量因素的确定点估计不同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative efficacy of blanket versus selective dry-cow therapy: a systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis.

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to determine the efficacy of selective dry-cow antimicrobial therapy compared to blanket therapy (all quarters/all cows). Controlled trials were eligible if any of the following were assessed: incidence of clinical mastitis during the first 30 DIM, frequency of intramammary infection (IMI) at calving, or frequency of IMI during the first 30 DIM. From 3480 identified records, nine trials were data extracted for IMI at calving. There was an insufficient number of trials to conduct meta-analysis for the other outcomes. Risk of IMI at calving in selectively treated cows was higher than blanket therapy (RR = 1.34, 95% CI = 1.13, 1.16), but substantial heterogeneity was present (I2 = 58%). Subgroup analysis showed that, for trials using internal teat sealants, there was no difference in IMI risk at calving between groups, and no heterogeneity was present. For trials not using internal teat sealants, there was an increased risk in cows assigned to a selective dry-cow therapy protocol, compared to blanket treatment, with substantial heterogeneity in this subgroup. However, the small number of trials and heterogeneity in the subgroup without internal teat sealants suggests that the relative risk between treatments may differ from the determined point estimates based on other unmeasured factors.

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