ArticleIrish veterinary journal2025
Multi-platform diagnostic strategy and biosecurity as basis of contagious agalactia control programs in endemic areas.
Article in Irish veterinary journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundControl strategies against contagious agalactia (CA), considered one of the most important diseases affecting small ruminants in countries surrounding the Mediterranean, are mainly based on traditional strategies considered suboptimal such as the use of inactivated vaccines and antibiotics. This manuscript analysed the efficacy of an alternative non-mandatory official control programme based on a multi-platform diagnostic panel and biosecurity developed and started in 185 herds placed in a contagious agalactia endemic area of Spain, using the data of 74,080 samples collected and analysed during a 4 years-period (2018-2021).
resultsGlobally, the combined analyses of bulk tank milk (BTM), ear or nasal swabs (in goats or sheep, respectively) and the serology to detect Mycoplasma agalactiae (Ma), allowed the detection of 40.54% of positive farms (n = 75), with Ma the species always detected in sheep (100%) and Mycoplasma mycoides subsp. capri (Mmc, 68,8%), Ma (29,3%) or both of them (1,9%) in goats. Taking into account productive aptitude and vaccination against CA, the use of BTM, ear or nasal swabs, and serology for herd classification demonstrated either a lack of concordance or only weak concordance. In herds that did not vaccinate, the classification of positives by male serology or swab detection showed moderate concordance. Vaccination against AC proved to be a protective factor against the occurrence of herds with bucks or rams testing positive.
conclusionsSince the different diagnostic techniques are not interchangeable, it is necessary to apply a multi-platform diagnostic panel for the accurate classification of herds. Based on official classification, strict biosecurity standards, including the prohibition of the entry of animals with unknown health status, allowed the completion of the CA control program.
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.