Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31022270›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Efficacy of cefquinome and a combination of cloxacillin and ampicillin for treatment of dairy cows with Streptococcus agalactiae subclinical mastitis.

Rodolfo Santos Rossi, Ariadne Ferreira Amarante, Simony Trevisan Guerra, Giulia Soares Latosinski, Bruna Fernanda Rossi, Vera Lucia Mores Rall, Jose Carlos de Figueiredo Pantoja

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial, Veterinary
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Genotypic and antimicrobial susceptibility ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2023
    Article
  5. Review
  6. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Rodolfo Santos RossiDepartment of Veterinary Hygiene and Public Health, School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), Botucatu, SP, Brazil.
Ariadne Ferreira AmaranteDepartment of Veterinary Hygiene and Public Health, School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), Botucatu, SP, Brazil.
Simony Trevisan GuerraDepartment of Veterinary Hygiene and Public Health, School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), Botucatu, SP, Brazil.
Giulia Soares LatosinskiDepartment of Veterinary Hygiene and Public Health, School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), Botucatu, SP, Brazil.
Bruna Fernanda RossiDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, Institute of Biosciences, Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), Botucatu, SP, Brazil.
Vera Lucia Mores RallDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, Institute of Biosciences, Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), Botucatu, SP, Brazil.
Jose Carlos de Figueiredo PantojaDepartment of Veterinary Hygiene and Public Health, School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), Botucatu, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-1648-9360
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A randomized clinical trial was conducted to assess efficacy of intramammary cloxacillin and ampicillin (CLOXIMM), intramammary cefquinome (CEFIMM), and intramuscular cefquinome (CEFIM) to treat Streptococcus agalactiae intramammary infections (Trial 1). Subsequently, two treatment groups were extended to assess whether CLOXIMM was not inferior to CEFIMM (Trial 2). Nine farms were included in the study. Milk samples were collected from all quarters of all lactating cows for microbiological identification of S. agalactiae. Positive cows were randomly allocated into four groups: CLOXIMM, CEFIMM, CEFIM, or negative control (CONTROL). Study outcomes were bacteriological cure at 14 (CURE14), 21 (CURE21), and 14 and 21 (CURE1421) days after treatment onset, and somatic cell count. Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds of cure between each treatment and CONTROL. Non-inferiority analysis was performed considering a one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) and non-inferiority margins (Δ) of 0.10, 0.15, 0.20, and 0.25. Adjusted S. agalactiae bacteriological cure for CLOXIMM, CEFIMM, CEFIM, and CONTROL was 86, 98, 55, and 25% at day 14; 82, 93, 52, and 0% at day 21; and 82, 92, 40, and 0% at days 14 and 21, respectively. Treatment with CLOXIMM and CEFIMM resulted in greater bacteriological cure rates, as compared with CEFIM or CONTROL, which does not justify the use of CEFIM in S. agalactiae eradication programs. The CURE14 difference between CEFIMM and CLOXIMM was of 12.1 percentage points (95% CI: 0.056-0.184). CLOXIMM was considered not inferior to CEFIMM for Δ = 0.20 or 0.25 and inconclusive for Δ = 0.10 or 0.15. Thus, it should be pondered by veterinarians whether an expected 12.1 (5.6-18.4) percentage points increase in cure rate would justify the use of a fourth-generation cephalosporin, as opposed to a combination of traditional IMM drugs (cloxacillin and ampicillin) to treat S. agalactiae subclinical mastitis.

Indexed as

DairyingAmpicillinAnimalsCattleCell CountCephalosporinsCloxacillinDrug Therapy, CombinationFemaleMastitis, BovineRisk FactorsStreptococcus agalactiaeTreatment OutcomeAmpicillincefquinomeCephalosporinsCloxacillin

Identifiers

PMID31022270
PMCPMC6483254
OpenAlexW2941712299

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.