Arq. Bras. Med. Vet. Zootec.

2010

DOI: 10.1590/s0102-09352010000300001

View full text |Buy / Rent full text

|

Sign up to set email alerts

|

Efficacy of florfenicol and intravenous fluid therapy for treatment of experimental salmonellosis in newborn calves

Daniela Gomes da Silva¹,

Paulo César da Silva²,

José Jurandir Fagliari³

Abstract: The efficacy of florfenicol associated or not to intravenous fluid therapy for treatment of Salmonella Dublin-infected calves was determined. Twenty-four healthy 10 to 15-day-old Holstein calves were randomly allotted into four groups, with six animals each: control (group 1); infected with 10 8 CFU Salmonella Dublin and not treated (group 2); infected with 10 8 CFU Salmonella Dublin and treated with florfenicol (group 3); and infected with 10 8 CFU Salmonella Dublin and treated with florfenicol associated to … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Results5

Citation Types

Supporting

0

Mentioning

7

Contrasting

0

Year Published

2022

2022

2022

2022

Publication Types

Select...

Article1

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent1

Authors

Journals

Cited by 3 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 8 publications

(6 reference statements)

Supporting

0

Mentioning

7

Contrasting

0

Order By: Relevance

“…The main characteristics of the 11 selected studies are described in Table 1. Four studies reported the funding source [private (Lofstedt et al ., 1996; Fecteau et al ., 2003), public (Silva et al ., 2010), or mixed (Ollivett et al ., 2009)] whereas seven did not. No study provided a sample-size calculation, and randomization was unclear in one study (Bywater, 1977).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…No study provided information about the training of personnel administering treatments, and only two studies reported blinding of personnel (Sheldon, 1977; Ollivett et al ., 2009). Due to irrelevant interventions, one or more groups (arms) were not considered: (1) unchallenged calves treated or non-treated (Fecteau et al ., 2003; Schnyder et al ., 2009; Silva et al ., 2010); (2) AMs in combination with other treatments (Bywater, 1977; Silva et al ., 2010); and (3) AMs given as prophylactic intervention (Schnyder et al ., 2009).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Five studies reported a definition of diarrhea (Bywater, 1977; Grimshaw et al ., 1987; Grandemange et al ., 2002; Sunderland et al ., 2003; Ollivett et al ., 2009); it was exclusively based on FCS but its description and score-point system highly varied across studies. Five studies used the term ‘diarrhea’ but provided no definition (Lofstedt et al ., 1996; White et al ., 1998; Fecteau et al ., 2003; Schnyder et al ., 2009; Silva et al ., 2010), and one study defined health events based on abnormal FCS without using the term ‘diarrhea’ (Sheldon, 1997). Two studies reported treatment failure and success (Sheldon, 1997; Grandemange et al ., 2002), but the term ‘failure’ was not defined in Sheldon (1997).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Seven studies reported the severity of diarrhea (Lofstedt et al ., 1996; Sheldon, 1997; White et al ., 1998; Grandemange et al ., 2002; Sunderland et al ., 2003; Ollivett et al ., 2009; Silva et al ., 2010). However, one study (Grandemange et al ., 2002) was not considered due to incomplete reporting.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The risk of bias at the outcome level was based on the severity of diarrhea (or FCS; Lofstedt et al ., 1996; Sheldon, 1997; White et al ., 1998; Grandemange et al ., 2002; Sunderland et al ., 2003; Ollivett et al ., 2009; Silva et al ., 2010) or diarrhea duration (Bywater, 1977; Grimshaw et al ., 1987; Fecteau et al ., 2003; Schnyder et al ., 2009). Results of the risk of bias assessment for each domain are shown at the study level (Fig.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Use of antimicrobials in the treatment of calf diarrhea: a systematic review

Bernal-Córdoba

¹

,

²

,

³

et al. 2022

Anim. Health. Res. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Buy / Rent full text

The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the scientific literature evaluating the efficacy and comparative efficacy of antimicrobials (AMs) for the treatment of diarrhea in calves. Eligible studies were non- and randomized controlled trials evaluating an AM intervention against a positive and negative control, with at least one of the following outcomes: fecal consistency score, fever, dehydration, appetite, attitude, weight gain, and mortality. Four electronic databases were searched. Titles and abstracts (three reviewers) and full texts (two reviewers) were screened. A total of 2899 studies were retrieved; 11 studies met the inclusion criteria. The risk of bias was assessed. Most studies had incomplete reporting of trial design and results. Eight studies compared AMs to a negative control (placebo or no treatment). Among eligible studies, the most common outcomes reported were diarrhea severity (n = 6) and mortality (n = 6). Eligible studies evaluated very different interventions and outcomes; thus, a meta-analysis was not performed. The risk of bias assessment revealed concerns with reporting of key trial features, including disease and outcome definitions. Insufficient evidence is available in the scientific literature to assess the efficacy of AMs in treating calf diarrhea.

“…The main characteristics of the 11 selected studies are described in Table 1. Four studies reported the funding source [private (Lofstedt et al ., 1996; Fecteau et al ., 2003), public (Silva et al ., 2010), or mixed (Ollivett et al ., 2009)] whereas seven did not. No study provided a sample-size calculation, and randomization was unclear in one study (Bywater, 1977).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…No study provided information about the training of personnel administering treatments, and only two studies reported blinding of personnel (Sheldon, 1977; Ollivett et al ., 2009). Due to irrelevant interventions, one or more groups (arms) were not considered: (1) unchallenged calves treated or non-treated (Fecteau et al ., 2003; Schnyder et al ., 2009; Silva et al ., 2010); (2) AMs in combination with other treatments (Bywater, 1977; Silva et al ., 2010); and (3) AMs given as prophylactic intervention (Schnyder et al ., 2009).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Five studies reported a definition of diarrhea (Bywater, 1977; Grimshaw et al ., 1987; Grandemange et al ., 2002; Sunderland et al ., 2003; Ollivett et al ., 2009); it was exclusively based on FCS but its description and score-point system highly varied across studies. Five studies used the term ‘diarrhea’ but provided no definition (Lofstedt et al ., 1996; White et al ., 1998; Fecteau et al ., 2003; Schnyder et al ., 2009; Silva et al ., 2010), and one study defined health events based on abnormal FCS without using the term ‘diarrhea’ (Sheldon, 1997). Two studies reported treatment failure and success (Sheldon, 1997; Grandemange et al ., 2002), but the term ‘failure’ was not defined in Sheldon (1997).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Seven studies reported the severity of diarrhea (Lofstedt et al ., 1996; Sheldon, 1997; White et al ., 1998; Grandemange et al ., 2002; Sunderland et al ., 2003; Ollivett et al ., 2009; Silva et al ., 2010). However, one study (Grandemange et al ., 2002) was not considered due to incomplete reporting.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The risk of bias at the outcome level was based on the severity of diarrhea (or FCS; Lofstedt et al ., 1996; Sheldon, 1997; White et al ., 1998; Grandemange et al ., 2002; Sunderland et al ., 2003; Ollivett et al ., 2009; Silva et al ., 2010) or diarrhea duration (Bywater, 1977; Grimshaw et al ., 1987; Fecteau et al ., 2003; Schnyder et al ., 2009). Results of the risk of bias assessment for each domain are shown at the study level (Fig.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Use of antimicrobials in the treatment of calf diarrhea: a systematic review

Bernal-Córdoba

¹

,

²

,

³

et al. 2022

Anim. Health. Res. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Buy / Rent full text

The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the scientific literature evaluating the efficacy and comparative efficacy of antimicrobials (AMs) for the treatment of diarrhea in calves. Eligible studies were non- and randomized controlled trials evaluating an AM intervention against a positive and negative control, with at least one of the following outcomes: fecal consistency score, fever, dehydration, appetite, attitude, weight gain, and mortality. Four electronic databases were searched. Titles and abstracts (three reviewers) and full texts (two reviewers) were screened. A total of 2899 studies were retrieved; 11 studies met the inclusion criteria. The risk of bias was assessed. Most studies had incomplete reporting of trial design and results. Eight studies compared AMs to a negative control (placebo or no treatment). Among eligible studies, the most common outcomes reported were diarrhea severity (n = 6) and mortality (n = 6). Eligible studies evaluated very different interventions and outcomes; thus, a meta-analysis was not performed. The risk of bias assessment revealed concerns with reporting of key trial features, including disease and outcome definitions. Insufficient evidence is available in the scientific literature to assess the efficacy of AMs in treating calf diarrhea.

scite is a Brooklyn-based startup that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

hi@scite.ai

334 Leonard St

Brooklyn, NY 11211

Product

Browser Extension Citation Statements Search Advanced Search Reference Check Visualizations Dashboards Explore Journals Explore Organizations Explore Funders Embedding Badge Embedding Citation Search Pricing

Resources

Blog Help & FAQ API Terms For Students For Universities & Libraries For Researchers For Publishers For Pharmaceuticals & Biotech Author Marketing Become an Affiliate Get an organization trial or quote scite Data & Services

About

News & Press Careers Read our Paper Coverage

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact

Copyright © 2023 scite Inc. All rights reserved.

Made with 💙 for researchers