Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35195874›Full record

SynthesisVeterinary research communications2022

Milk proteins as mastitis markers in dairy ruminants - a systematic review.

Anna Giagu, Martina Penati, Sara Traini, Simone Dore, Maria Filippa Addis

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Veterinary research communications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
10.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Mastitis in Dairy Cattle: On-Farm Diagnostics and Future Perspectives.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Anna GiaguDipartimento di Medicina Veterinaria, Università di Sassari, Sassari, Italy.
Martina PenatiDipartimento di Medicina Veterinaria e Scienze Animali, Università di Milano, Lodi, Italy.
Sara TrainiDipartimento di Medicina Veterinaria e Scienze Animali, Università di Milano, Lodi, Italy.
Simone DoreIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Sardegna, Centro di Referenza Nazionale per le Mastopatie degli Ovini e dei Caprini, Sassari, Italy.
Maria Filippa AddisDipartimento di Medicina Veterinaria e Scienze Animali, Università di Milano, Lodi, Italy. filippa.addis@unimi.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6934-7748
University of Milan · ITIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Sardegna · ITUniversity of Sassari · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mastitis is one of the most impacting diseases in dairy farming, and its sensitive and specific detection is therefore of the greatest importance. The clinical evaluation of udder and mammary secretions is typically combined with the milk Somatic Cell Count (SCC) and often accompanied by its bacteriological culture to identify the causative microorganism. In a constant search for improvement, several non-enzymatic milk proteins, including milk amyloid A (M-SAA), haptoglobin (HP), cathelicidin (CATH), and lactoferrin (LF), have been investigated as alternative biomarkers of mastitis for their relationship with mammary gland inflammation, and immunoassay techniques have been developed for detection with varying degrees of success. To provide a general overview of their implementation in the different dairy species, we carried out a systematic review of the scientific literature using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. Our review question falls within the type "Diagnostic test accuracy questions" and aims at answering the diagnostic question: "Which are the diagnostic performances of mastitis protein biomarkers investigated by immunoassays in ruminant milk?". Based on 13 keywords combined into 42 searches, 523 manuscripts were extracted from three scientific databases. Of these, 33 passed the duplicate removal, title, abstract, and full-text screening for conformity to the review question and document type: 78.8% investigated cows, 12.1% sheep, 9.1% goats, and 6.1% buffaloes (some included more than one dairy species). The most frequently mentioned protein was M-SAA (48.5%), followed by HP (27.3%), CATH (24.2%) and LF (21.2%). However, the large amount of heterogeneity among studies in terms of animal selection criteria (45.5%), index test (87.9%), and standard reference test (27.3%) resulted in a collection of data not amenable to meta-analysis, a common finding illustrating how important it is for case definitions and other criteria to be standardized between studies. Therefore, results are presented according to the SWiM (Synthesis Without Meta-analysis) guidelines. We summarize the main findings reported in the 33 selected articles for the different markers and report their results in form of comparative tables including sample selection criteria, marker values, and diagnostic performances, where available. Finally, we report the study limitations and bias assessment findings.

Indexed as

Cattle DiseasesGoat DiseasesMastitis, BovineSheep DiseasesAnimalsBiomarkersCattleCell CountFemaleGoatsHaptoglobinsMammary Glands, AnimalMilkMilk ProteinsSerum Amyloid A ProteinSheepBiomarkersHaptoglobinsMilk ProteinsSerum Amyloid A Proteinamyloid Acathelicidinhaptoglobinimmunoassayintramammary infection

Identifiers

PMID35195874
PMCPMC9165246
OpenAlexW4213130918

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.