ArticleVeterinary world2025
Evaluation of lyophilized
Article in Veterinary world, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aim: Gastrointestinal nematode infections have a significant impact on the health and productivity of sheep worldwide. Conventional anthelmintics are facing rising resistance, prompting the need for alternative control strategies. Materials and Methods: Thirty female Latvian Darkhead lambs (4-5 months; mean 35 ± 0.8 kg) were randomly assigned to five groups: Two bolus groups (A and B), one granule group, and two controls (negative and positive). Groups A and B received intraruminal boluses with different lyophilized extract formulations, the granule group received powdered Results: No adverse clinical or physiological effects were observed. Bolus groups exhibited a more rapid and consistent reduction in strongylid FECs compared to the granule and negative control groups. On day 56, egg counts decreased to 325-358 eggs per gram (EPG) in bolus and granule groups, compared to 533 EPG in the negative control. Hematological and biochemical parameters remained within reference ranges. Conclusion:
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.