Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34430074›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2021

Effects of delivery

Thomas B Hairgrove, Virginia Fajt, Ronald Gill, Rhonda Miller, Michael Miller, Travis Mays

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Thomas B HairgroveDepartment of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States.
Virginia FajtDepartment of Veterinary Physiology and Pharmacology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-0697-7149
Ronald GillDepartment of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States.
Rhonda MillerDepartment of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States.
Michael MillerDepartment of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1448-6289
Travis MaysTexas Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory, College Station, TX, United States.
Texas A&M University · USWellborn Road Veterinary Medical Center · USWilliam H Miner Agricultural Research Institute · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough Beef Quality Assurance guidelines do not recommend use of darting methods to deliver drugs, cattle in the US may be raised on farms and ranches without restraint facilities, and reports from the field suggest that dart guns are being used to deliver antimicrobial drugs. Few studies report whether this route of administration results in altered drug disposition or carcass quality.

methodsForty steers were blocked by sire and then randomly assigned to treatment with saline, ceftiofur crystalline free acid, tildipirosin, or tulathromycin delivered

resultsCeftiofur disposition differed from published reports with lower mean C

conclusionsPharmacokinetic parameters of ceftiofur crystalline free acid, tildipirosin, and tulathromycin to cattle using pressure-adjustable pneumatic gas-powered dart gun were estimated in this study. Delivery of tildipirosin and tulathromycin to cattle with dart gun may also result in detectable decreases in tenderness of harvested steaks.

Indexed as

Antimicrobial drugsCarcass qualityPharmacokineticsPharmacologyRemote delivery

Identifiers

PMID34430074
PMCPMC8349169
OpenAlexW3187083278

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.