ArticleVeterinary sciences2024
IPM Strategy to Control EFB in
Article in Veterinary sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating efficacy of oxytetracycline, lincomycin, and tylosin for treatment of clinical European foulbrood disease.Journal of insect science (Online) · 2026Article
- In Vivo and In Vitro Evaluation of Probiotic and Postbiotic Strategies Against Foulbrood in Honeybees.Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2026Article
- How Science Supports Honey Bees: Identification of Research on Best Practices in Beekeeping.Insects · 2025Article
- Antimicrobial control and temporal dynamics of M. plutonius colonization in adult worker honey bees (Apis mellifera).PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We tested an integrated pest management (IPM) strategy to control European foulbrood (EFB) in honey bees. Colonies affected by EFB were assigned to two homogenous groups: an oxytetracycline-treated group (1.5 g OTC/hive) that underwent partial shook swarm (PSS) in combination with queen caging (QC) and an untreated group where only two beekeeping techniques, PSS and QC, were applied. The consumption of sucrose solution, the strength of the colonies, side effects of the mentioned techniques, clinical as well as subclinical relapses of EFB, and the amount of OTC residues in the honey were assessed over a 7-month-long monitoring period. Regarding the consumption of the sucrose solution, there was no significant difference between the OTC-treated and untreated groups. The strength of the untreated colonies was consistently but not significantly higher than those treated with OTC. PSS combined with QC resulted in various side effects in both groups: queen loss (52%), absconding (8%), and drone-laying queen (4%). Untreated colonies (16.7%) showed clinical EFB relapses 4 months after the application of PSS along with QC, while 15.4% of the OTC-treated colonies were confirmed EFB-positive by PCR. OTC residues were detected in the honey yielded in the cases of both groups. Two months after the PSS, the amount of OTC residues in the untreated group was 0.6 ± 0.2 µg/kg, while that in the OTC-treated group amounted to 5.8 ± 11.6 µg/kg; both results are below the maximum residue limit (MRL) of 100 ppb considered in the EU for cascade use.
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.