Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40989590›Full record

ReviewOpen veterinary journal2025

Evaluation of the therapeutic effect of a fly maggot antimicrobial peptide in a

Zhengli Wang, Jungang Wang, Hong Shen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Open veterinary journal, 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. Review
  2. Review
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

3 authors.

Zhengli WangCollege of Animal Science and Technology, Shihezi University, Shihezi, China.
Jungang WangCollege of Animal Science and Technology, Shihezi University, Shihezi, China.
Hong ShenCollege of Animal Science and Technology, Shihezi University, Shihezi, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) have been widely recognized for their robust antimicrobial efficacy and significant activity against diverse pathogens. Aim: Methods: The AMP derived from maggots was isolated, purified, and evaluated for antimicrobial activity. Subsequently, it was applied to treat a murine model of mastitis. A concentration of 25.36 µg/ml AMP was determined as the optimal dose for intramammary administration in mice with Results: The therapeutic efficacy of maggot-derived AMP against Conclusion: This study demonstrated that maggot-derived AMP holds promise as a potential alternative to conventional antibiotics for the treatment of bovine mastitis, offering a viable therapeutic strategy to address antimicrobial resistance and improve clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsAntimicrobial PeptidesDipteraMastitisStaphylococcal InfectionsStaphylococcus aureusAnimalsDisease Models, AnimalFemaleLarvaMiceMice, Inbred ICRAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntimicrobial PeptidesMaggot antimicrobial peptideMastitisModelMouseTreatment

Identifiers

PMID40989590
PMCPMC12451170

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.