ArticleScientific reports2025
Successful implementation of a risk assessment and mitigation program to control bovine digital dermatitis at the herd-level.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Phenotypic and genomic study of digital dermatitis in UK Holstein heifers.BMC genomics · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This nonrandomized clinical intervention study was designed as a prospective, multicenter group comparison to evaluate the efficacy of a risk assessment and mitigation program to control bovine digital dermatitis (BDD). The program was implemented over a 1-year period on 9 intervention (INT) farms and 10 control (CTR) farms. Mainstays of the program derived from results of a previous BDD risk factor analysis. All farms were visited monthly to assess within-herd BDD prevalences to perform risk assessments and to treat BDD lesions with salicylic acid paste. Bulk milk samples were collected every 4 months. Diagnosis of BDD was based on visual inspection (clinical scoring) of the feet. Risk-associated management practices were identified on each farm, and management changes expected to prevent further introduction or spread of BDD within INT farms were suggested and agreed upon with farmers of the INT farms. Lesional biopsies were taken from a subset of cows of the INT group before and 2 months after treatment for histopathological and molecular biological examination to confirm histological and bacteriological cure in addition to clinical cure. The initial BDD prevalences for the INT and CTR farms averaged 39.8% (IQR 16.2) and 41.0% (IQR 12.4) for overall BDD lesions, 25.9% (IQR 10.8) and 26.2% (IQR 14.5) for active BDD lesions, and 22.1% (IQR 6.9) and 23.7% (IQR 22.3) for chronic BDD lesions, respectively. After 1 year of implementation, overall BDD prevalences were reduced to 14.1% (IQR 8.2) on INT farms but remained at 41.6% (IQR 10.8) on CTR farms. A significant decline in bulk milk anti-Treponema antibodies over the 1-year period was found in INT as compared to CTR farms. Considering the results of the histopathological examination, of 16S metagenomic sequencing and of the Fluorescence in situ hybridization as indicators for healing, 6/7 (85.7%) selected lesions were cured 2 months post completion of treatment. The results of this study show that the described BDD control measures can markedly reduce the within-herd prevalence of BDD. The proposed procedure might provide the basis for a nationwide BDD mitigation program that could be of importance also beyond national borders.
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.