ArticleParasitology research2018
Economic viability of anthelmintic treatment in naturally infected beef cattle under different nutritional strategies after weaning.
Article in Parasitology research, 2018. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Life Stage-Specific Burdens and Impacts of Gastrointestinal Nematodes in Beef Cattle in the United States: A Review of Diagnostics, Impacts on Productivity, and Immune Response.Veterinary sciences · 2026Review
- The economic impact of endo- and ectoparasites in dairy cattle.Parasites & vectors · 2025Review
- The Economic Impact of Parasitism from Nematodes, Trematodes and Ticks on Beef Cattle Production.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of treatment with different anthelmintic compounds on the productivity of naturally infected calves and the economic viability of these treatments within extensive breeding systems employing different nutritional strategies after weaning. For this purpose, 4 farms with 42-60 calves naturally infected with gastrointestinal nematodes were selected. The calves were distributed into 6 groups (7-10 animals each) per farm and treated with ivermectin 1%, ivermectin 3.15%, eprinomectin 5%, levamisole 7.5%, albendazole 15%, and control group (no treatment). These animals were evaluated over an experimental period of 150 days. Levamisole 7.5% presented the best capacity for the reduction of eggs per gram (EPG) of feces in all herds evaluated, followed by albendazole 15% and eprinomectin 5%. Parasite resistance to multiple drugs was found in all herds, especially those of Cooperia, Haemonchus, Oesophagostomum, and Trichostrongylus. For farm 1, differences in weight gain and EPG reduction percentages led to a difference of US$285.06 between the levamisole and ivermectin 3.15% groups. Similar findings were noted for the levamisole and ivermectin 1% groups of farm 3, with a difference of US$399.37 because of the final weight gain in these groups. For farms 2 and 4, the ivermectin 3.15% and control groups, respectively, were the most profitable; these unexpected results were possibly influenced by variables not measured during the experimental period. This study suggested that anthelmintic treatments should always precede an efficacy test, once they are demonstrated to be most profitable under adequate breeding conditions, to ensure adequate control of gastrointestinal nematode infection.
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.