ArticleThe Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne2025
Clinical and diagnostic comparisons of bovine foot rot and bovine digital dermatitis lesions and management differences in feedlot cattle in Alberta.
Article in The Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Bovine foot rot (BFR) and bovine digital dermatitis (BDD) are infectious foot lesions with overlapping clinical features that complicate diagnosis. Objective: Our objective was to differentiate BFR and BDD using quantitative and qualitative techniques. Populations of BFR- and BDD-associated bacteria were compared across sampling strategies, histopathological features described, and risk factors assessed Animals and procedure: Lame cattle were assessed and bacteria in punch biopsy samples (PB-samples), swabs, and subcutaneous samples (SC-samples) were quantified using quantitative real-time PCR. In addition, PB-samples were used for hematoxylin and eosin and Warthin-Faulkner staining. Feedlot records and producer surveys captured risk factors and producers' opinions on management practices. Results: Swabs and SC-samples had varying bacterial abundances compared to PB-samples. Histopathology and risk factors were not diagnostic for BFR Conclusion and clinical relevance: Higher bacterial loads in swabs compared to PB-samples suggested careful consideration of their use as an alternative to punch biopsies in studying BFR and BDD. Furthermore, histology did not differentiate these diseases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40786733PMC12330794What 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.