2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.vetmic.2010.10.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Efficacy of Staphylococcus aureus vaccines for bovine mastitis: A systematic review

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
97
0
3

Year Published

2014
2014
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 108 publications
(100 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
0
97
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…However, not all parameters used were qualified, with only those most relevant to the subsequent discussion being used. Based on another systematic review (PEREIRA et al, 2011) some parameters were classified as appropriate (score 3), appropriate but incomplete (score 2), and unsatisfactory or unclear (score 1). Other parameters were only classified as appropriate (score 2) or unsatisfactory/ unclear (score 1).…”
Section: Assessment Of Enrolment Criteriamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, not all parameters used were qualified, with only those most relevant to the subsequent discussion being used. Based on another systematic review (PEREIRA et al, 2011) some parameters were classified as appropriate (score 3), appropriate but incomplete (score 2), and unsatisfactory or unclear (score 1). Other parameters were only classified as appropriate (score 2) or unsatisfactory/ unclear (score 1).…”
Section: Assessment Of Enrolment Criteriamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, there was no restriction on date or language for the selected articles. The criteria were adapted based on other systematic reviews (Noli et al 2005, Negre et al 2009, Pereira et al 2011. The parameters used were: -Randomization: randomized trials received score 2, whereas non-randomized experiments or when this fact was not clearly described in the text received a score 1.…”
Section: Selection Of Studiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As an example, blind and randomized evaluations are of great importance to bring greater reliability to scientific work, since it prevents study participants to know which treatment is being applied. In the case of randomized trials, the distribution is made randomly (Pereira et al 2011).…”
Section: ++mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarly, in vitro studies were not utilised in this review. There were no restrictions based on the number of animals (Pereira et al 2011) or the selection of case reports, when its main objective was to evaluate the efficacy of sildenafil treatment for PH in dogs. In addition, there was also no restriction regarding to the etiology of PH since this disease may originate from various factors (multifactorial disease).…”
Section: Selection Of Papersmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Adapted from other systematic reviews (Nuttall et al 2007, Negre et al 2009, Pereira et al 2011, various data were classified as adequate (score: 3), unclear/partly adequate (score: 2) or inadequate (score: 1). Some parameters were classified only as adequate (score: 2) or inadequate (score: 1).…”
Section: Assessment Of the Quality Of Papersmentioning
confidence: 99%