ArticlePorcine health management2023
Field trial: disinfection of contaminated anesthetic masks for piglets.
Article in Porcine health management, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antimicrobial Susceptibility from a One Health Perspective Regarding PorcineAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This paper aimed to assess the success of cleaning and disinfection on microbiological contamination of anesthetic masks, which were used for automated isoflurane anesthesia for surgical castration of male piglets. Data collection took place on 11 farms in Southern Germany between September 2020 and June 2022. Each farm was visited three times (one farm having two different anesthesia devices was visited six times), and microbiological assessments took place at four sample points (SP): after unpacking the masks (SP0), after disinfection before anesthesia (SP1), after anesthesia of all piglets to be castrated in this run (SP2), and after disinfection after anesthesia (SP3). The microbiological assessment included the determination of total bacteria count, total count of hemolytic and non-hemolytic mesophilic aerotolerant bacteria and a qualitative detection of indicator bacteria Escherichia (E.) coli, extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing E. coli (ESBL) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). For analysis, a generalized linear mixed model was applied using farms and farm visits as random effects and sampling points nested in farm visits as fixed effect. The fixed effect was highly significant for all three variables (total bacteria count, total count of hemolytic and non-hemolytic mesophilic aerotolerant bacteria) (p < 0.001). The bacterial counts at SP0 were about the same as at SP3. Concerning indicator bacteria, their presence was highest at SP2 and lowest at SP3. No indicator bacteria were present at SP1. It can be concluded that disinfection of anesthetic masks, especially before performing anesthesia, may effectively protect piglets of the following batch against unwanted transmission of pathogens. These findings will help farmers plan cleaning and disinfection activities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.