Evaluating the efficacy of internal teat sealants at dry-off for the prevention of new intra-mammary infections during the dry-period or clinical mastitis during early lactation in dairy cows: A systematic review update and sequential meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A systematic review and Bayesian sequential pair-wise meta-analyses were conducted to assess the efficacy of internal teat sealants (ITS) administered at dry-off in comparison to no treatment for preventing new intramammary infections (IMI) and clinical mastitis (CM) in dairy cattle. This work updated a previous systematic review and network meta-analysis conducted in 2019 but employed a narrowed scope and eligibility. The updated eligibility included studies that used ITS without concurrent therapy compared to a no treatment control (NTC), a study population of dairy cows or prepartum heifers, controlled trial design, and assessed one of the following outcomes: incidence of new IMI at calving or CM during the first 30 days in milk (DIM). Risk of bias was assessed through the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Evidence quality was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). There were 141 potentially relevant records identified from the updated search conducted on April 29, 2021, with a publication date restriction of 2018 or later; one study passed full-text screening and was included. Of the 32 studies included in the previous review, 12 studies were relevant after applying the modified eligibility criteria, totaling 13 studies included in this review (12 addressing IMI at calving outcome, 4 addressing CM at 30 DIM outcome). Sequential meta-analysis was conducted for both outcomes in R 3.6.0. Decisions for stopping were assessed at each analysis for intervention effect or futility in finding an effect based on a priori minimum clinically relevant values (OR δ =0.5, 0.75). ITS at dry-off significantly reduced odds of new IMI at calving compared to NTC at the second meta-analysis (OR 2 =0.27, 95% CI=0.22–0.34), and onward (OR 12 =0.29, 95% CI=0.27–0.32). For CM at 30 DIM, significance was reached at the second meta-analysis (OR 2 =0.59, 95% CI=0.47–0.73), and onward (OR 3 =0.47, 95% CI=0.42–0.51). Stopping for effect occurred at the second analysis in both outcomes and OR δ s, but low-quality evidence and heterogeneity concerns were noted. A continuity-correction to include zero-event CM studies showed significance at the third meta-analysis (OR 3 =0.79, 95% CI=0.73–0.86), stopping for effect at the fourth for OR δ = 0.75 (OR 4 =0.77, 95% CI=0.72–0.83), and stopping for futility at the second for OR δ = 0.5 (OR 2 =0.94, 95% CI=0.75–1.20), but the main CM analysis was considered more appropriate due to the sensitivity analysis’ very low-quality evidence assessment. Based on sequential evidence available, sufficient research currently exists for practical use, and cessation of future research until substantial changes to ITS application occur may be appropriate. • Internal teat sealants reduce new intramammary infections and clinical mastitis. • Sequential meta-analysis assesses cumulative knowledge with each new publication. • Sequential meta-analysis can identify research stopping recommendations. • Efficacy and stopping recommendations became consistent for both outcomes early on. • Research should target other questions until industry products or practices change.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».