Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33969029›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2021

Non-antibiotic Approaches for Disease Prevention and Control in Nursery Pigs: A Scoping Review.

Lee V Wisener, Jan M Sargeant, Terri L O'Sullivan, Annette M O'Connor, Scott A McEwen, Mark Reist, Katheryn J Churchill

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2021. 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
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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. Article
  2. Review
  3. Preweaning piglet survival on commercial farms.Journal of animal science · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Linking Animal Welfare and Antibiotic Use in Pig Farming-A Review.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Review
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.

Lee V WisenerDepartment of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.
Jan M SargeantDepartment of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.
Terri L O'SullivanDepartment of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.
Annette M O'ConnorDepartment of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States.
Scott A McEwenDepartment of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.
Mark ReistDepartment of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.
Katheryn J ChurchillDepartment of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.
University of Guelph · CAMichigan State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Swine producers are encouraged to practice antibiotic stewardship by reducing their use of antibiotics belonging to classes of medical importance to humans. We conducted a scoping review of non-antibiotic approaches in the form of products or management practices that might prevent or control disease and thus reduce the need for antibiotics in nursery pigs. Our objectives were to systematically describe the research on this broad topic for the North American context, identify specific topics that could feasibly support systematic reviews, and identify knowledge gaps. A search of multiple databases identified 11,316 articles and proceedings for relevance screening. From these, 441 eligible clinical trials and observational studies were charted. The majority were clinical trials (94%). Study results from EU countries were mostly communicated through journal articles, whereas study results from the USA were mostly communicated through conference proceedings. Interventions and health outcomes were diverse. The two most frequent intervention categories were feed additives and piglet vaccines. The three most frequent outcomes reported were diarrhea, mortality, and indices of vaccine immunity. There were 13 specific topics comprising various feed additives and vaccines that might feasibly support systematic reviews. There were relatively few studies in which interventions were compared with antibiotic comparison groups and relatively few studies evaluating management practices.

Indexed as

antibiotic stewardshipdisease controldisease preventionnon-antibioic approachesnursery pigsscoping review

Identifiers

PMID33969029
PMCPMC8097137
OpenAlexW3152748794

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.