Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42877816›Full record

ArticleJournal of veterinary research2026

Rapid efficacy testing of cattle footbath disinfectants by flow cytometry: a laboratory-validated screening method complementary to EN 1656.

Lucie Langová, Petr Kouřil, Vladimír Zmrhal, Lenka Hromádková, Miroslav Macháček, Libor Kalhotka, Zdeněk Havlíček

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of veterinary research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Lucie LangováDepartment of Animal Breeding, Animal Nutrition & Biochemistry, Department of Animal Protection and Welfare & Veterinary Public Health, University of Veterinary Sciences Brno, 61242 Brno, Czech Republic.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0663-2001
Petr KouřilDepartment of Food Technology, Department of Animal Breeding, Mendel University in Brno, 61300 Brno, Czech Republic.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2677-7067
Vladimír ZmrhalDepartment of Animal Breeding, Mendel University in Brno, 61300 Brno, Czech Republic.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4534-685X
Lenka HromádkováUnit of Biological Methods, Institute for State Control of Veterinary Biologicals and Medicines, 62100 Brno, Czech Republic.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-0838-4299
Miroslav MacháčekDepartment of Animal Protection and Welfare & Veterinary Public Health, University of Veterinary Sciences Brno, 61242 Brno, Czech Republic.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4749-4170
Libor KalhotkaDepartment of Food Technology, Department of Animal Breeding, Mendel University in Brno, 61300 Brno, Czech Republic.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5004-3493
Zdeněk HavlíčekDepartment of Morphology, Physiology and Animal Genetics, Department of Food Technology, Department of Animal Breeding, Mendel University in Brno, 61300 Brno, Czech Republic.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7746-8037

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Disinfectants are essential for preventing infectious diseases in livestock, particularly in cattle footbath applications. Conventional culture-based methods for assessing bactericidal efficacy are reliable but time-consuming, leaving the need unmet for rapid laboratory-based screening approaches. Material and Methods: Thirteen commercially available cattle footbath disinfectants were evaluated using the EN 1656 dilution-neutralisation method and flow cytometry (FCM) with propidium iodide (PI) staining. A binary logistic regression model was developed to relate the proportion of PI Results: Disinfectants containing iodine or iodide, organic acids, hydrogen peroxide, quaternary ammonium compounds, glutaraldehyde or alcohol showed high bactericidal efficacy, whereas those with zinc sulphate were ineffective. The predictive model demonstrated good performance (AUC = 0.787) and identified an optimal threshold of approximately 80% PI Conclusion: Flow cytometry represents a rapid and efficient laboratory-based screening method with the potential to complement culture-based approaches for evaluating bovine footbath disinfectant efficacy.

Indexed as

bovinefluorescent staininghoof disinfectionmembrane integrityprophylaxis

Identifiers

PMID42877816
PMCPMC13664710

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.