ArticleIrish veterinary journal2025
Ovine lameness in Ireland: a survey-based investigation of farmer reported prevalence, recognition, and treatment of lameness conditions.
Article in Irish veterinary journal, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOvine lameness represents a significant production and welfare challenge to farmers and comprises two main categories, infectious and non-infectious lameness. The leading infectious lameness conditions are interdigital dermatitis (ID), footrot (FR) and contagious ovine digital dermatitis (CODD). The predominant types of non-infectious foot conditions include toe granulomas (TG) and shelly hoof (white line disease; SH). There is a paucity of information available as to how Irish farmers treat infectious foot lesions in sheep. This study aimed to i) Establish farmer-reported prevalence of lameness in Irish sheep flocks, ii) Assess farmers' ability to identify infectious and non-infectious lameness types, iii) Examine the treatment methods employed by farmers for managing and treating infectious lameness in sheep.
resultsThe survey was conducted opportunistically and non-randomly. Three hundred and sixty-three valid responses were gathered. The median overall farm lameness prevalence reported was 6.0% (IQR: 4.0%-10.0%). Respondents reported ID as the most common lameness condition with a median estimated prevalence of 10.0% (IQR: 4.0 - 15.0). Respondents identified 77.9%, 76.6%, 61.7%, 67.3% and 67.0% of ID, FR, CODD, TG and SH lesions correctly, respectively. Where the respective lesion was correctly identified 95.1%, 90.2%, 49.2%, 59.7% and 68.4% reported to have seen ID, FR, CODD, TG and SH lesions, respectively on their farm previously. Antibiotic aerosol was the most frequently utilised treatment for ID (71.3% [95% CI:65.2, 76.8%]) reported by survey respondents. Antibiotic injection was reported by respondents as the most used treatment for FR (72.2% [95% CI: 65.8,78.0%]) and CODD (85.1% [95% CI: 75.8, 91.8%]). Therapeutic foot trimming was practiced by 52.9% (95% CI:46.1,59.6%) of respondents for the treatment of FR.
conclusionsInterdigital dermatitis (ID) posed the greatest burden to Irish farmers, with a median farm prevalence of 10.0%, while footrot affected 90.2% of flocks (median 4.0%). Contagious ovine digital dermatitis, previously considered rare, was reported in 47% of flocks (median 3%). Farmers' ability to correctly identify lesions varied from 79.9% for ID to 62.4% for CODD. Therapeutic foot-trimming, remain widely used within Irish flocks and was reported by 52.9% of respondents for the treatment of FR.
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.