Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27525647›Full record

ArticleTropical animal health and production2016

Evaluation of different models to segregate Pelibuey and Katahdin ewes into resistant or susceptible to gastrointestinal nematodes.

Jovanny Gaspar Palomo-Couoh, Armando Jacinto Aguilar-Caballero, Juan Felipe de Jesús Torres-Acosta, Juan Gabriel Magaña-Monforte

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Tropical animal health and production, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Phenotypic assessment of resistance in a flock of Pelibuey lambs experimentally infected with Haemonchus contortus.Revista brasileira de parasitologia veterinaria = Brazilian journal of veterinary parasitology : Orgao Oficial do Colegio Brasileiro de Parasitologia Veterinaria · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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.

Jovanny Gaspar Palomo-CouohFacultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Campus de Ciencias, Biológicas y Agropecuarias, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Km 15.5, Carretera Mérida-Xmatkuil, Apartado postal 4-116, 97100, Mérida, Yucatán, Mexico.
Armando Jacinto Aguilar-CaballeroFacultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Campus de Ciencias, Biológicas y Agropecuarias, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Km 15.5, Carretera Mérida-Xmatkuil, Apartado postal 4-116, 97100, Mérida, Yucatán, Mexico. aguilarc@correo.uady.mx.
Juan Felipe de Jesús Torres-AcostaFacultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Campus de Ciencias, Biológicas y Agropecuarias, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Km 15.5, Carretera Mérida-Xmatkuil, Apartado postal 4-116, 97100, Mérida, Yucatán, Mexico.
Juan Gabriel Magaña-MonforteFacultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Campus de Ciencias, Biológicas y Agropecuarias, Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Km 15.5, Carretera Mérida-Xmatkuil, Apartado postal 4-116, 97100, Mérida, Yucatán, Mexico.
Autonomous University of Yucatán · MX

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study evaluated four models based on the number of eggs per gram of faeces (EPG) to segregate Pelibuey or Katahdin ewes during the lactation period into resistant or susceptible to gastrointestinal nematodes (GIN) in tropical Mexico. Nine hundred and thirty EPG counts of Pelibuey ewes and 710 of Katahdin ewes were obtained during 10 weeks of lactation. Ewes were segregated into resistant, intermediate and susceptible, using their individual EPG every week. Then, data of every ewe was used to provide a reference classification, which included all the EPG values of each animal. Then, four models were evaluated against such reference. Model 1 was based on the 10-week mean EPG count ± 2 SE. Models 2, 3 and 4 were based on the mean EPG count of 10, 5 and 2 weeks of lactation. The cutoff points for the segregation of ewe in those three models were the quartiles ≤Q1 (low elimination) and ≥Q3 (high elimination). In all the models evaluated, the ewes classified as resistant had lower EPG than intermediates and susceptible (P < 0.001) while ewes classified as susceptible had higher EPG than intermediate and resistant (P < 0.001). According to J Youden test, models presented concordance with the reference group (>70 %). Model 3 tended to show higher sensitivity and specificity with the reference data, but no difference was found with other models. The present study showed that the phenotypic marker EPG might serve to identify and segregate populations of adult ewes during the lactation period. All models used served to segregate Pelibuey and Katahdin ewes into resistant, intermediate and susceptible. The model 3 (mean of 5 weeks) could be used because it required less sampling effort without losing sensitivity or specificity in the segregation of animals. However, model 2 (mean of 2 weeks) was less labour-intensive.

Indexed as

Animal HusbandryLactationAnimalsDisease SusceptibilityFecesFemaleHaemonchiasisHaemonchusMexicoModels, BiologicalParasite Egg CountSheepSheep DiseasesTropical ClimateEPGKatahdinPelibueyResistantSegregationSusceptible

Identifiers

PMID27525647
OpenAlexW2511272130

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.