Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29513739›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Pathology and bacteria related to digital dermatitis in dairy cattle in all year round grazing system in Brazil.

Tiago F Moreira, Elias J Facury Filho, Antônio U Carvalho, Mikael L Strube, Martin W Nielsen, Kirstine Klitgaard, Tim K Jensen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Metabolic Footprint ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. First Molecular Confirmation ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. The Presence ofMicroorganisms · 2021
    Article
  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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Tiago F MoreiraDepartment of Veterinary Clinics and Surgery, School of Veterinary Medicine, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-0808-1955
Elias J Facury FilhoDepartment of Veterinary Clinics and Surgery, School of Veterinary Medicine, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Antônio U CarvalhoDepartment of Veterinary Clinics and Surgery, School of Veterinary Medicine, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Mikael L StrubeNational Veterinary Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Martin W NielsenNational Veterinary Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Kirstine KlitgaardNational Veterinary Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Tim K JensenNational Veterinary Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Technical University of Denmark · DKUniversidade Federal de Minas Gerais · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Digital dermatitis (DD) is one of the main causes of lameness in dairy cattle worldwide, and it is frequently reported in high-yielding, free stall dairy herds from regions with a temperate climate. However, DD is also observed with high prevalence in grazing cattle with a low milk yield in tropical regions. To clarify whether these differences have an impact on the etiology of the disease, we studied DD lesions from all year round grazing cattle of mixed breed in Brazil using high-throughput 16S rRNA gene sequencing and fluorescent in situ hybridization. The study included samples from 66 skin lesions and 5 healthy skins collected from five farms. Both techniques showed Treponema spp. to be the most abundant bacteria, present in all but one of the samples with minimal epidermal alterations. We identified eleven different Treponema strains belonging to the six major phylotypes of Treponema which have all previously been identified in DD lesions. Furthermore, we identify Dichelobacter nodosus in DD lesions by gene sequencing and also by fluorescent in situ hybridization in almost half of biopsy specimens in areas with mild epithelial damage and together with Treponema. The present data support the hypothesis that Treponema constitutes the main pathogen responsible for DD, independent of the environment and region where cows are kept, and it further suggests D. nodosus as another potentially important pathogen.

Indexed as

Animal HusbandryAnimalsBiopsyBrazilCattleCattle DiseasesDichelobacter nodosusDigital DermatitisDNA, BacterialFeeding BehaviorFemaleGram-Negative Bacterial InfectionsHerbivoryIn Situ Hybridization, FluorescenceLameness, AnimalRibotypingDNA, Bacterial

Identifiers

PMID29513739
PMCPMC5841792
OpenAlexW2792998387

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.