Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40684188›Full record

ArticleBMC veterinary research2025

Surveillance of anthelmintic treatments on ruminant farms to detect resistance in a low-prevalence area.

Rosa D'Ambrosio, Loredana Baldi, Stefania Cavallo, Alessandro Nappa, Luigia Di Donato, Roberta Brunetti, Mirella Santaniello, Antonella Pesce, Marialuisa Buonanno, Laura Rinaldi and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC veterinary research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

11 authors.

Rosa D'AmbrosioIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Mezzogiorno, Portici, Naples, Italy.
Loredana BaldiIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Mezzogiorno, Portici, Naples, Italy.
Stefania CavalloIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Mezzogiorno, Portici, Naples, Italy.
Alessandro NappaDepartment of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Production, University of Naples Federico II, CREMOPAR, Naples, Italy.
Luigia Di DonatoDepartment of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Production, University of Naples Federico II, CREMOPAR, Naples, Italy.
Roberta BrunettiIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Mezzogiorno, Portici, Naples, Italy.
Mirella SantanielloDepartment of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Production, University of Naples Federico II, CREMOPAR, Naples, Italy.
Antonella PesceIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Mezzogiorno, Portici, Naples, Italy.
Marialuisa BuonannoIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Mezzogiorno, Portici, Naples, Italy.
Laura RinaldiDepartment of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Production, University of Naples Federico II, CREMOPAR, Naples, Italy.
Antonio BoscoDepartment of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Production, University of Naples Federico II, CREMOPAR, Naples, Italy. antonio.bosco@unina.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDifficulty in combating gastrointestinal nematode (GIN) infection in ruminants is increasing worldwide, owing to progressive anthelmintic resistance (AR). This study evaluates the AR current status against benzimidazoles and macrocyclic lactones on 20 sheep and 10 cattle farms in southern Italy that have performed a greater number of anthelmintic treatments in recent years. On each farm, the animals were randomly divided into two groups of 20 animals; one group was treated with ivermectin (IVM, 0.2 mg/kg of body weight), and the other with albendazole (ALB, 3.8 mg/kg of body weight). In each farm, an individual faecal egg count was performed on samples collected on the day of treatment (D0) and after 14 days (D14) using the Mini-FLOTAC technique. For each group, coprocultures were performed on D0 and D14. An in vitro test (egg hatch assay-EHA) and a follow-up FECR test with fenbendazole were performed to confirm the low in vivo efficacy. To better understand farm management and the anthelmintic treatment methods commonly adopted, a questionnaire was formulated and submitted to farmers during the recruitment phase. The content of the questionnaire was identical for cattle and sheep.

resultsThe in vivo test (FECR) showed a high efficacy (from 96.7% to 100%) for both tested anthelmintics in all cattle farms and in 18 sheep farms. A low efficacy for ALB has been detected in two sheep farms, with FECR value of 86.0% for Farm 1 and 92.4% for Farm 2 with predominant GIN genera of Trichostrongylus and Haemonchus on post-treatment samples. The EHA confirmed AR on both sheep farms with low efficacy in Farm 1 of 87.0% and in Farm 2 of 77.0%. At the end of the administration period, questionnaires were collected and a descriptive analysis of data was carried out. Cattle farmers displayed a low perception of the AR problem, while sheep farmers had a higher perception.

conclusionsThe phenomenon of AR in low-prevalence areas certainly needs to be monitored on each farm in conjunction with the usual anthelmintic treatments, so as to be able to promptly identify and solve the problem.

Indexed as

AnthelminticsCattle DiseasesDrug ResistanceNematode InfectionsSheep DiseasesAlbendazoleAnimalsCattleFecesItalyIvermectinParasite Egg CountPrevalenceSheepAlbendazoleAnthelminticsIvermectinAnthelmintic treatmentsGastrointestinal nematodesResistanceRuminants

Identifiers

PMID40684188
PMCPMC12275430

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.