The Potential for Sample Testing at the Pen Level to Inform Prudent Antimicrobial Selection for Bovine Respiratory Disease Treatment: Investigations Using a Feedlot Simulation Tool.

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.

1. Laboratory tests for bovine respiratory bacteria and antimicrobial resistance in commercial feedlot cattle: comparing culture, long-read metagenomics, and recombinase polymerase amplification.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026
   Article
2. Respiratory Bacteria and Antimicrobial Resistance Genes Detected by Long-Read Metagenomic Sequencing Following Feedlot Arrival, Subsequent Treatment Risk and Phenotypic Resistance in Feedlot Calves.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as