Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28190155›Full record

ArticleParasitology research2017

Treatment against coccidiosis in Norwegian lambs and potential risk factors for development of anticoccidial resistance-a questionnaire-based study.

Ane Odden, Heidi L Enemark, Lucy J Robertson, Antonio Ruiz, Lisbeth Hektoen, Snorre Stuen

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Parasitology research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Ane OddenFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Production Animal Clinical Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Kyrkjevegen 332/334, 4325, Sandnes, Norway. ane.odden@nmbu.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1737-1700
Heidi L EnemarkNorwegian Veterinary Institute, Ullevålsveien 68, P.O. Box 750 Sentrum, 0106, Oslo, Norway.
Lucy J RobertsonFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Food Safety and Infection Biology, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, P.O. Box 8146 Dep, 0033, Oslo, Norway.
Antonio RuizParasitology Unit, Department of Animal Pathology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, 35416 Arucas, Las Palmas, Spain.
Lisbeth HektoenAnimalia Norwegian Meat and Poultry Research Centre, P.O. Box 396 Økern, 0513, Oslo, Norway.
Snorre StuenFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Production Animal Clinical Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Kyrkjevegen 332/334, 4325, Sandnes, Norway.
Norwegian University of Life Sciences · NOAnimalia (Norway) · NONorwegian Veterinary Institute · NOUniversidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to investigate the use of anticoccidials in Norwegian sheep flocks and identify farms with management procedures likely to select for drug resistance. Data were obtained by a questionnaire sent to all members of the Norwegian Sheep Recording System in October 2015. The data set consisted of 1215 answers, corresponding to 8.5% of Norwegian sheep flocks. Anticoccidials were used in 82.7% of flocks. Main treatment was at turnout (38.6% of treated flocks) or 1 week after turnout (32.4%). Interestingly, clinical signs possibly related to coccidiosis were observed by almost 40% of the farmers after treatment, which might be an indication of drug resistance. Correlations between the apparently reduced anticoccidial efficacy and management conditions, such as the size of the farms, were found. From the farmers' perspective, metaphylactic treatment was used in 88.5% of treated flocks, of which approximately one third had no history of clinical coccidiosis. Even though farmers seem aware of the importance of good drenching routines based on reliable estimates of weights and calibration of drench guns, drench gun used for anticoccidial administration was never calibrated in 12.1% of the flocks. Finally, dose estimation was made by visual appraisal in 27.5% of the flocks, which can lead to incorrect dosing. Based on the present study, it cannot be determined whether the apparent treatment failure was related to management practises, incorrect administration of the drug, other infections or actual anticoccidial drug resistance.

Indexed as

Drug ResistanceAnimalsCoccidiosisNorwayRisk FactorsSheepSheep DiseasesSurveys and QuestionnairesAnticoccidialsDrug resistanceEimeria spp.NorwayOvine coccidiosis

Identifiers

PMID28190155
PMCPMC5360830
OpenAlexW2587404866

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.