Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25475689›Full record

ArticlePreventive veterinary medicine2015

Evaluation of a protocol to reduce the incidence of neonatal calf diarrhoea on dairy herds.

V Meganck, G Hoflack, S Piepers, G Opsomer

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive veterinary medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 98 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Supplementation of the probioticAnimal nutrition (Zhongguo xu mu shou yi xue hui) · 2025
    Article
  8. Veterinarni medicina · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Welfare of calves.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

V MeganckDepartment of Reproduction, Obstetrics and Herd Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium. Electronic address: vanessa.meganck@ugent.be.
G HoflackMSD Animal Health, Lynx Binnenhof 5, 1200 Brussels, Belgium.
S PiepersDepartment of Reproduction, Obstetrics and Herd Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium.
G OpsomerDepartment of Reproduction, Obstetrics and Herd Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium.
Ghent University · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Calf diarrhoea causes substantial economic losses in cattle herds worldwide. Neonatal calves are particularly sensitive to infections with enteropathogens. The present study focused on prevention against the main infectious causes of neonatal calf diarrhoea i.e. Escherichia coli, rota- and coronavirus, and Cryptosporidium parvum. Dairy herds (n=24) with a high percentage of neonatal calves scouring (>10%) were included and calves were sampled for the presence of these four enteropathogens. To decrease diarrhoea problems among neonatal calves, a standard protocol was tested on 13 herds (treatment group) where both C. parvum and either E. coli or rota- or coronavirus were identified as being involved, the other 11 herds served as control group. The protocol consisted of 2 points of action: preventive vaccination of dams against E. coli, rota- and coronavirus, and preventive administration of halofuginone lactate to newborn calves. The average percentage of calves suffering from neonatal diarrhoea (39.7% versus 14.3%, P<0.01) and the average percentage of faecal samples positive for C. parvum (34% versus 11%, P<0.05) differed significantly between control herds and treatment herds after implementation of the protocol. No significant differences between control and treatment group were observed in the percentage of calves excreting E. coli, rotavirus and coronavirus, both before and at the end of the trial. Furthermore, risk factors potentially associated with the development of neonatal calf scours were determined. Non-significant results were obtained for the effect of the protocol on duration of diarrhoea and the effect of the colostral IgG quantity on the risk of diarrhoea. Passive immunity transfer status of the calves, measured both before the onset and at the end of the study, were non-significant between groups.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnimals, NewbornBacterial VaccinesBelgiumCattleCattle DiseasesColostrumCoronaviridaeCryptosporidium parvumDairyingDiarrheaEscherichia coliFemaleIncidenceInterviews as TopicLogistic ModelsBacterial VaccineshalofuginonePiperidinesQuinazolinonesColostrumDairy calfDiarrhoeaHalofuginoneVaccination

Identifiers

PMID25475689
PMCPMC7132389
OpenAlexW1998834363

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.