牛肉和小牛肉生产中疾病预防和控制的非抗生素方法:范围综述。

IF 4.3 2区 农林科学 Q1 VETERINARY SCIENCES
Lee V Wisener, Jan M Sargeant, Annette M O'Connor, Terri L O'Sullivan, Scott A McEwen, Andrea Nwosu, Tanya M Rossi
{"title":"牛肉和小牛肉生产中疾病预防和控制的非抗生素方法:范围综述。","authors":"Lee V Wisener,&nbsp;Jan M Sargeant,&nbsp;Annette M O'Connor,&nbsp;Terri L O'Sullivan,&nbsp;Scott A McEwen,&nbsp;Andrea Nwosu,&nbsp;Tanya M Rossi","doi":"10.1017/S1466252319000252","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Livestock producers are encouraged to reduce the use of antibiotics belonging to classes of medical importance to humans. We conducted a scoping review on non-antibiotic interventions in the form of products or management practices that could potentially reduce the need for antibiotics in beef and veal animals living under intensive production conditions. Our objectives were to systematically describe the research on this broad topic, identify specific topics that could feasibly support systematic reviews, and identify knowledge gaps. Multiple databases were searched. Two reviewers independently screened and charted the data. From the 13,598 articles screened, 722 relevant articles were charted. The number of relevant articles increased steadily from 1990. The Western European research was dominated by veal production studies whereas the North American research was dominated by beef production studies. The interventions and outcomes measured were diverse. The four most frequent interventions included non-antibiotic feed additives, vaccinations, breed type, and feed type. The four most frequent outcomes were indices of immunity, non-specific morbidity, respiratory disease, and mortality. There were seven topic areas evaluated in clinical trials that may share enough commonality to support systemic reviews. There was a dearth of studies in which interventions were compared to antibiotic comparison groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":51313,"journal":{"name":"Animal Health Research Reviews","volume":"20 2","pages":"128-142"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1466252319000252","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Non-antibiotic approaches for disease prevention and control in beef and veal production: a scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Lee V Wisener,&nbsp;Jan M Sargeant,&nbsp;Annette M O'Connor,&nbsp;Terri L O'Sullivan,&nbsp;Scott A McEwen,&nbsp;Andrea Nwosu,&nbsp;Tanya M Rossi\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S1466252319000252\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Livestock producers are encouraged to reduce the use of antibiotics belonging to classes of medical importance to humans. We conducted a scoping review on non-antibiotic interventions in the form of products or management practices that could potentially reduce the need for antibiotics in beef and veal animals living under intensive production conditions. Our objectives were to systematically describe the research on this broad topic, identify specific topics that could feasibly support systematic reviews, and identify knowledge gaps. Multiple databases were searched. Two reviewers independently screened and charted the data. From the 13,598 articles screened, 722 relevant articles were charted. The number of relevant articles increased steadily from 1990. The Western European research was dominated by veal production studies whereas the North American research was dominated by beef production studies. The interventions and outcomes measured were diverse. The four most frequent interventions included non-antibiotic feed additives, vaccinations, breed type, and feed type. The four most frequent outcomes were indices of immunity, non-specific morbidity, respiratory disease, and mortality. There were seven topic areas evaluated in clinical trials that may share enough commonality to support systemic reviews. There was a dearth of studies in which interventions were compared to antibiotic comparison groups.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Animal Health Research Reviews\",\"volume\":\"20 2\",\"pages\":\"128-142\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/S1466252319000252\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Animal Health Research Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466252319000252\",\"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/S1466252319000252","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: 3

摘要

鼓励牲畜生产者减少使用对人类具有重要医学意义的抗生素。我们对产品或管理实践形式的非抗生素干预措施进行了范围审查,这些措施可能会减少生活在集约化生产条件下的牛肉和小牛肉对抗生素的需求。我们的目标是系统地描述关于这个广泛主题的研究,确定可以支持系统综述的具体主题,并确定知识差距。检索了多个数据库。两位审稿人独立筛选并绘制了数据图表。从筛选的13598篇文章中,722篇相关文章被绘制成图表。自1990年以来,有关文章的数量稳步增加。西欧的研究以小牛肉生产研究为主,而北美的研究以牛肉生产研究为主。测量的干预措施和结果是多种多样的。四种最常见的干预措施包括非抗生素饲料添加剂、疫苗接种、品种类型和饲料类型。四种最常见的结果是免疫指标、非特异性发病率、呼吸系统疾病和死亡率。在临床试验中评估了七个主题领域,它们可能有足够的共性来支持系统评价。缺乏将干预措施与抗生素对照组进行比较的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Non-antibiotic approaches for disease prevention and control in beef and veal production: a scoping review.

Livestock producers are encouraged to reduce the use of antibiotics belonging to classes of medical importance to humans. We conducted a scoping review on non-antibiotic interventions in the form of products or management practices that could potentially reduce the need for antibiotics in beef and veal animals living under intensive production conditions. Our objectives were to systematically describe the research on this broad topic, identify specific topics that could feasibly support systematic reviews, and identify knowledge gaps. Multiple databases were searched. Two reviewers independently screened and charted the data. From the 13,598 articles screened, 722 relevant articles were charted. The number of relevant articles increased steadily from 1990. The Western European research was dominated by veal production studies whereas the North American research was dominated by beef production studies. The interventions and outcomes measured were diverse. The four most frequent interventions included non-antibiotic feed additives, vaccinations, breed type, and feed type. The four most frequent outcomes were indices of immunity, non-specific morbidity, respiratory disease, and mortality. There were seven topic areas evaluated in clinical trials that may share enough commonality to support systemic reviews. There was a dearth of studies in which interventions were compared to antibiotic comparison groups.

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