Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32451034›Full record

ReviewThe Veterinary clinics of North America. Food animal practice2020

Bovine Respiratory Disease Diagnosis: What Progress Has Been Made in Infectious Diagnosis?

Bart Pardon, Sébastien Buczinski

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Veterinary clinics of North America. Food animal practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

54 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Regulation of drug resistance to enrofloxacin inFrontiers in microbiology · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

2 authors.

Bart PardonDepartment of Large Animal Internal Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, Merelbeke 9820, Belgium. Electronic address: Bart.Pardon@UGent.be.
Sébastien BuczinskiDépartement des Sciences Cliniques, Faculté de Médecine Vétérinaire, Université de Montréal, 3200 rue Sicotte, St-Hyacinthe, Québec J2S 2M2, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When it is desired to identify infectious agents involved in an outbreak of bovine respiratory disease, a variety of possible sampling methods may be used. For field use, the deep nasopharyngeal swab, transtracheal wash, and nonendoscopic bronchoalveolar lavage are most feasible. At present, bacterial culture and polymerase chain reaction testing are most commonly used to identify infectious agents. Interpretation of test results can be challenging, particularly for opportunistic pathogens. Evidence-based guidelines for precise interpretation of microbiologic tests results are lacking; however, approaches that have been practically useful for the management of bovine respiratory disease outbreaks are presented.

Indexed as

AnimalsBovine Respiratory Disease ComplexBronchoalveolar Lavage FluidCattleHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingPolymerase Chain ReactionSpectrometry, Mass, Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption-IonizationBronchoalveolar lavageCalvesMALDI-TOFNext-generation sequencingPCR

Identifiers

PMID32451034
PMCPMC7244442

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.