ArticleOpen research Europe2026
European Network for Optimization of Veterinary Antimicrobial Therapy (ENOVAT) guidelines for antimicrobial and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use in bovine respiratory disease.
Article in Open research Europe, 2026. 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: Bovine respiratory disease (BRD) is a major cause of morbidity, mortality, impaired welfare, production loss, and antimicrobial use in cattle. These European Network for Optimization of Veterinary Antimicrobial Therapy (ENOVAT) guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for antimicrobial and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use in cattle with acute, undifferentiated BRD, balancing animal-level outcomes with antimicrobial stewardship. Methods: Recommendations were developed using the GRADE approach and Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, following ENOVAT procedures and RIGHT reporting guidance. Evidence came from two prespecified systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials evaluating individual treatment of clinical BRD: one comparing antimicrobial classes head-to-head and one evaluating NSAIDs as adjunctive treatment or monotherapy. Metaphylaxis and prophylaxis were excluded. Certainty of evidence was assessed with GRADE. Panel judgments incorporated stakeholder-derived thresholds for clinically meaningful differences in short-term therapeutic failure, defined as need for antimicrobial re-treatment, and a merged stewardship perspective based on WHO antimicrobial importance and EMA AMEG categories. Results: Across antimicrobial comparisons, no class showed a clinically meaningful advantage in reducing short-term re-treatment sufficient to override stewardship considerations. The panel conditionally suggests penicillin G, oxytetracycline, or florfenicol as first-line empirical treatment, guided by local susceptibility data, herd treatment history, product authorization, withdrawal periods, and suspicion of Conclusions: These guidelines prioritize effective BRD treatment while reducing unnecessary use of higher-priority antimicrobials. Local adoption or adaptation using GRADE-ADOLOPMENT is recommended.
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.