Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33117659›Full record

ArticleVeterinary medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2020

Managing Welfare and Antimicrobial-Resistance Issues in Treating Foot-and-Mouth Disease Lesions: A New Therapeutic Approach.

Peter Windsor, Syseng Khounsy, Francesca Earp, Isabel MacPhillamy, James Young, Russell Bush

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Veterinary medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Peter WindsorThe University of Sydney, Sydney School of Veterinary Science, Camden, NSW, 2570, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5629-3517
Syseng KhounsyDepartment of Livestock and Fisheries, Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries, Vientiane, Lao People's Democratic Republic.
Francesca EarpThe University of Sydney, Sydney School of Veterinary Science, Camden, NSW, 2570, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9454-2550
Isabel MacPhillamyThe University of Sydney, Sydney School of Veterinary Science, Camden, NSW, 2570, Australia.
James YoungThe University of Sydney, Sydney School of Veterinary Science, Camden, NSW, 2570, Australia.
Russell BushThe University of Sydney, Sydney School of Veterinary Science, Camden, NSW, 2570, Australia.
The University of Sydney · AUMinistry of Livestock and Fisheries · TZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionFoot-and-mouth disease (FMD) causes negative impacts on global food security, the livestock trade, national economies, and farming-family livelihoods, particularly in resource-poor developing countries with inadequate biosecurity and low levels of vaccination from inadequate veterinary services. As smallholder farmers have limited understanding of disease-risk management, their focus in FMD outbreaks is on accessing clinically effective therapies. However, most are provided inappropriate traditional treatments and/or topical or parenteral antibiotics, often delivered by paraveterinarians inadequately trained in antimicrobial custodianship. This results in negative financial impacts on livelihoods plus risks of food safety and development of antimicrobial resistance. We report the use of a novel pain-relief therapy for FMD.

methodsClinical examinations in an outbreak of suspected FMD in April 2019 in Muang Khay village in Luang Prabang province, Laos confirmed signs and lesions of severe, subacute, ulcerative glossitis and interdigital dermatitis, typical of FMD. All affected buffalo (n=99) and cattle (n=37) presented for treatment in a population of 238 large ruminants, from 15 of 136 households, were administered a topical anesthetic pain-relief product (PRP) wound gel by spray-on (10-30 mL per animal) formulation developed for aversive husbandry procedures (Tri-Solfen, Animal Ethics, Australia).

resultsTreatment with PRP resulted in immediate improvement in demeanor and locomotion, and no adverse events were observed. On follow-up interview, all owners confirmed that their animals were eating within 2 days and lesions had healed within 5 days. Having experienced the positive clinical impacts of PRP on affected animals, these and surrounding farmers were keen to purchase the PRP for future use. The veterinary authorities rapidly registered the PRP for FMD therapy in Laos due to the observed efficacy. DISCUSSION: These findings suggest a potential paradigm shift from treating FMD with expensive antimicrobials, which risks antimicrobial resistance, to a new, less expensive therapeutic approach that reduces animal suffering and may motivate farmers to report disease to access treatment. Use of the PRP is suggested as an innovation that may improve future FMD management, particularly in developing countries.

Indexed as

antisepsisbuffalocattleLaostherapytopical anesthesia

Identifiers

PMID33117659
PMCPMC7549654
OpenAlexW3092577820

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.