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 metaanalysis 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 (I 2 = 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.

Listeria monocytogenes is the cause of listeriosis, an important foodborne disease. Contaminated ready-to-eat foods are common sources of L. monocytogenes, yet no global estimates exist for prevalence and levels in high-risk ready-to-eat foods. Our objective was to estimate the prevalence and levels of L. monocytogenes in deli meat, soft cheese, and packaged salad. We searched Medline, Web of Science, Agricola, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, Science.gov, ScienceResearch.com, and OpenGREY for studies on L. monocytogenes prevalence and/or levels, with no restriction on publication date. We used a priori study selection, data extraction, and risk of biases processes. Results were synthesized with random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions to evaluate heterogeneity between studies. We included in the review 100 studies with a sample size restriction of ≥100, and we estimated L. monocytogenes prevalence in deli meat at 2.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.3 to 3.6%), in soft cheese at 2.4% (95% CI, 1.6 to 3.6%), and in packaged salad at 2.0% (95% CI, 1.2 to 3.1%). High heterogeneity was present in all food groups, and meta-regressions did not reveal consistent explanations for heterogeneity. Pathogen level was not reported consistently or in the format required for synthesis, so meta-analyses of this variable were not performed. The high heterogeneity between studies indicates that use of global summary prevalence estimates for risk assessments are not advisable, but awareness of risk and the heterogeneity of the risk is relevant for education and further risk assessment.

Reproducibility is an essential element of the scientific process, and it requires clear and complete reporting of study design, conduct, and analysis. In the human and animal health literature, incomplete reporting is associated with biased effect estimates. Moreover, incomplete reporting precludes knowledge synthesis and undervalues the resources allocated to the primary research. The Reporting Guidelines for Randomized Controlled Trials for Livestock and Food Safety (REFLECT) statement, published in 2010, is a checklist developed by expert consensus to provide guidance on what study elements should be reported in any intervention trial (designed experiment) involving livestock. The Journal of Dairy Science (JDS) has recently endorsed the use of reporting guidelines. To assess the status of reporting of controlled experiments in JDS and to provide a baseline for future comparison, we evaluated the reporting of 18 items from the REFLECT statement checklist in a sample of 137 controlled trials published in JDS in 2017. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts for relevance and then evaluated a sample of 120 papers reporting controlled trials (experimental studies involving at least one intervention and one comparison or control group), using yes or no questions. Although some items, such as treatment details and statistical analysis, were well reported, other areas, including sample size justification, allocation concealment, blinding, study flow, baseline data, and ancillary analyses, were often not reported or were incompletely described. This work highlights the need for authors and reviewers to take advantage of guidelines and checklists for reporting. Adherence to reporting guidelines can help improve the completeness of reporting of research, expedite and better inform the peer-review process, increase clarity for the reader, and allow for knowledge synthesis, such as meta-analysis, all of which serve to increase the value of the work conducted.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis (MA) was conducted to address the question, ‘What is the efficacy of bacterial vaccines to prevent respiratory disease in swine?’ Four electronic databases and the grey literature were searched to identify clinical trials in healthy swine where at least one intervention arm was a commercially available vaccine for one or more bacterial pathogens associated with respiratory disease in swine, including Mycoplasma hyopneumoniae, Actinobacillus pleuropneumonia, Actinobacillus suis, Bordetella bronchiseptica, Pasteurella multocida, Stretococcus suis, Haemophils parasuis, and Mycoplasma hyorhinis. To be eligible, trials had to measure at least one of the following outcomes: incidence of clinical morbidity, mortality, lung lesions, or total antibiotic use. There were 179 eligible trials identified in 146 publications. Network MA was undertaken for morbidity, mortality, and the presence or absence of non-specific lung lesions. However, there was not a sufficient body of research evaluating the same interventions and outcomes to allow a meaningful synthesis of the comparative efficacy of the vaccines. To build this body of research, additional rigor in trial design and analysis, and detailed reporting of trial methods and results are warranted.

Prevention and control of respiratory disease is a major contributor to antibiotic use in swine. A systematic review was conducted to address the question, 'What is the comparative efficacy of antimicrobials for the prevention of swine respiratory disease?' Eligible studies were controlled trials published in English evaluating prophylactic antibiotics in swine, where clinical morbidity, mortality, or total antibiotic use was assessed. Four databases and the gray literature were searched for relevant articles. Two reviewers working independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility followed by full-text articles, and then extracted data and evaluated risk of bias for eligible trials. There were 44 eligible trials from 36 publications. Clinical morbidity was evaluated in eight trials where antibiotics were used in nursery pigs and 10 trials where antibiotics were used in grower pigs. Mortality was measured in 22 trials in nursery pigs and 12 trials in grower pigs. There was heterogeneity in the antibiotic interventions and comparisons published in the literature; thus, there was insufficient evidence to allow quantification of the efficacy, or relative efficacy, of antibiotic interventions. Concerns related to statistical non-independence and quality of reporting were noted in the included trials.

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.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted to assess the relative efficacy of antimicrobial therapy given to dairy cows at dry-off. Eligible studies were controlled trials assessing the use of antimicrobials compared to no treatment or an alternative treatment, and assessed one or more of the following outcomes: incidence of intramammary infection (IMI) at calving, incidence of IMI during the first 30 days in milk (DIM), or incidence of clinical mastitis during the first 30 DIM. Databases and conference proceedings were searched for relevant articles. The potential for bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 algorithm. From 3480 initially identified records, 45 trials had data extracted for one or more outcomes. Network meta-analysis was conducted for IMI at calving. The use of cephalosporins, cloxacillin, or penicillin with aminoglycoside significantly reduced the risk of new IMI at calving compared to non-treated controls (cephalosporins, RR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.23–0.65; cloxacillin, RR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.38–0.79; penicillin with aminoglycoside, RR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.26–0.72). Synthesis revealed challenges with a comparability of outcomes, replication of interventions, definitions of outcomes, and quality of reporting. The use of reporting guidelines, replication among interventions, and standardization of outcome definitions would increase the utility of primary research in this area.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted to assess the relative efficacy of antimicrobial therapy for clinical mastitis in lactating dairy cattle. Controlled trials in lactating dairy cattle with natural disease exposure were eligible if they compared an antimicrobial treatment to a non-treated control, placebo, or a different antimicrobial, for the treatment of clinical mastitis, and assessed clinical or bacteriologic cure. Potential for bias was assessed using a modified Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. From 14775 initially identified records, 54 trials were assessed as eligible. Networks were established for bacteriologic cure by bacterial species group, and clinical cure. Disparate networks among bacteriologic cures precluded meta-analysis. Network meta-analysis was conducted for trials assessing clinical cure, but lack of precision of point estimates resulted in wide credibility intervals for all treatments, with no definitive conclusions regarding relative efficacy. Consideration of network geometry can inform future research to increase the utility of current and previous work. Replication of intervention arms and consideration of connection to existing networks would improve the future ability to determine relative efficacy. Challenges in the evaluation of bias in primary research stemmed from a lack of reporting. Consideration of reporting guidelines would also improve the utility of future research.