Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34196704›Full record

SynthesisJournal of animal science2021

Efficacy of phage therapy in pigs: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Karina Desiree, Sabrina Mosimann, Paul Ebner

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of animal science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. ThreeViruses · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Activity of a Bacteriophage Cocktail to ControlPHAGE (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2023
    Article
  18. Review
  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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Karina DesireeDepartment of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA.
Sabrina MosimannDepartment of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA.
Paul EbnerDepartment of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA.
Purdue University West Lafayette · US

Funding

Department of Health and Social CareGlobal AMR Innovation FundInternational Development Research CentreUK Government
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Limits on the use and efficacy of various antibiotics coupled with negative consumer perception of the practice have together spurred substantial research into compounds that could reduce the use antibiotics to control bacterial diseases in pigs. Bacteriophages are often among such potential compounds, and various groups have examined the efficacy of bacteriophages or bacteriophage products in limiting transmission or colonization of targeted bacteria. The study presented here provides a systematic review of such studies followed by a meta-analysis of aggregated data produced by each study. The data set was limited to inputs (n = 19; 576 total observations) from studies where: 1) live pigs were inoculated with a known quantity of challenge bacteria; 2) challenged animals were treated with a known quantity of phages; 3) concentrations of the challenge bacteria were measured in different tissues/fluids following phage treatment; and 4) SD (or SE to allow calculation of SD) was reported. Concentrations of challenge bacteria were significantly lower in phage-treated pigs versus challenged but untreated pigs (P < 0.0001; effect size = -1.06 1log10 colony-forming units [CFU]/g). The effect size of phage treatment was significantly greater (P < 0.05) in samples collected 48 to 96 h following phage treatment versus those collected ≤ 24 h following phage treatment. Likewise, effect size of phage treatment was significantly greater in piglets versus market-weight pigs. Across observations, phage treatment effect sizes were greatest (P < 0.01) in fecal samples versus ileal or cecal samples. Taken together, these data indicate that phage treatment can significantly reduce the concentrations of targeted bacteria in pigs; scenarios exist, however, where phage treatment could predictably be more or less effective.

Indexed as

BacteriophagesPhage TherapySwine DiseasesAnimalsCecumFecesSwinemeta-analysisphageswinesystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34196704
PMCPMC8280926
OpenAlexW3173417301

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.