Trial reportParasites & vectors2017
Effectiveness and residual speed of flea kill of a novel spot on formulation of spinetoram (Cheristin
Trial report in Parasites & vectors, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Spinetoram-Induced Potential Neurotoxicity through Autophagy Mediated by Mitochondrial Damage.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Recent Advancements in the Control of Cat Fleas.Insects · 2020Review
- The Biology and Ecology of Cat Fleas and Advancements in Their Pest Management: A Review.Insects · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA spot-on spinetoram formulation (Cheristin
methodsCats were randomized to treatment based on flea counts from infestations placed within 2 weeks prior to treatment. In Studies 1 and 2, groups were untreated control and spinetoram; in Study 3, groups were untreated control, spinetoram, FSM and imidacloprid, all applied per label on Day 0. Cats were infested the day before treatment. In Studies 1 and 2, counts were completed 48 h post-treatment and after weekly challenges through 5 weeks. In Study 3, infestations were completed weekly through Day 28, with counts 1, 4, 8 and 12 h after treatment or post-infestation (PI). Efficacy was determined on geometric mean flea count reductions compared with controls, and in Study 3 mean flea counts in spinetoram-groups were compared with those in FSM and imidacloprid groups.
resultsIn Studies 1 and 2, spinetoram effectiveness was 100% against existing infestations, and at least 96% through Day 37. In Study 3 mean counts were not significantly different from controls in any group until 8 h post-treatment when imidacloprid counts were significantly lower than spinetoram counts, which were in turn significantly lower than FSM counts (P < 0.05). At 1 h PI spinetoram-group counts were significantly lower (P < 0.05) than counts in: controls, all days; imidacloprid, Days 7, 14, and 28; FSM, Days 14 and 28. At 4 h PI, spinetoram mean counts were significantly lower (P < 0.05) relative to: controls, all days; imidacloprid, Days 7, 14 and 21; FSM, Days 7, 14, 21 and 28 (P < 0.05). On multiple occasions, at 8 and 12 h PI, mean counts were significantly lower (P < 0.05) for spinetoram than for imidacloprid and FSM; at no point were FSM or imidacloprid significantly more effective than spinetoram against new infestations. All treatments were well tolerated.
conclusionsSpinetoram was highly effective for at least 1 month post-treatment and provided more rapid month-long residual SOK than FSM or imidacloprid.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.