Antimicrobial use guidelines for canine pyoderma by the International Society for Companion Animal Infectious Diseases (ISCAID)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Canine pyoderma is one of the most common presentations in small animal practice, frequently leading to antimicrobial prescribing. OBJECTIVES: To provide clinicians with antimicrobial treatment guidelines for staphylococcal pyoderma, including those involving meticillin-resistant staphylococci. Guidance on diagnosing surface, superficial and deep pyoderma and their underlying primary causes, is included. Recommendations aim to optimise treatment outcomes while promoting responsible antimicrobial use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Evidence was gathered from a systematic literature review of English-language treatment studies for canine pyoderma up to 23 December 2023. Quality was assessed using SORT criteria and combined with authors' consensus evaluation. Recommendations were voted on in an iterative process, followed by a Delphi-style feedback process before final agreement by the authors. RESULTS: Cytology should be performed in all cases before antimicrobials are used. Topical antimicrobial therapy alone is the treatment-of-choice for surface and superficial pyodermas. Systemic antimicrobials should be reserved for deep pyoderma and for superficial pyoderma when topical therapy is not effective. Systemic therapy, with adjunctive topical treatment, is initially provided for 2 weeks in superficial and 3 weeks in deep pyoderma, followed by re-examination to assess progress and manage primary causes. First-choice drugs have expected efficacy against the majority of meticillin-susceptible Staphylococcus pseudintermedius; for all other drugs, laboratory testing should confirm susceptibility and exclude suitability of safer alternatives. As culture and susceptibility testing are essential for rationalising systemic therapy, laboratories and practices should price them reasonably to encourage use. Proactive topical therapy using antiseptics may help prevent recurrences. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The accessibility of the skin offers excellent, achievable opportunities for antimicrobial stewardship.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".