Cited by 97Microbial infections and disease researchAnimal Virus Infections StudiesVeterinary medicine and infectious diseases

Bovine Respiratory Disease Diagnosis

Open access
Pardon, Bart, Buczinski, Sébastien·2020·Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice

Abstract

When it is desired to identify infectious agents involved in an outbreak of bovine respiratory disease, a variety of possible sampling methods may be used. For field use, the deep nasopharyngeal swab, transtracheal wash, and nonendoscopic bronchoalveolar lavage are most feasible. At present, bacterial culture and polymerase chain reaction testing are most commonly used to identify infectious agents. Interpretation of test results can be challenging, particularly for opportunistic pathogens. Evidence-based guidelines for precise interpretation of microbiologic tests results are lacking; however, approaches that have been practically useful for the management of bovine respiratory disease outbreaks are presented.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cvfa.2020.03.005

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Veterinarians prioritise rectal temperature and clinical examination because they select tools based on speed, cost-effectiveness, and ease of use in rural settings.

    “By prioritising rectal temperature and clinical examination, veterinarians are selecting tools based on speed, cost-effectiveness, and ease of use in rural settings (43).”

    From Understanding antibiotic decision-making for bovine respiratory disease: a survey of UK farm veterinarians (2026) · cites this paper as [43]

    The Types of samples and sampling procedures section (page unavailable) says field sampling techniques must be economically feasible in equipment cost and time. The Available diagnostic tests section likewise emphasizes short turnaround times. Neither passage says veterinarians prioritise rectal temperature and clinical examination, or attributes that choice to ease of use in rural settings. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [9]Buczinski S. Pardon B. BRD diagnosis: what progress have we made in clinical diagnosis? Vet Clin North Am Food Anim Pract 36 2 2020 399 423 32451033
  2. [20]Hodgson JL. Collection and interpretation of tracheal wash and bronchoalveolar lavage for diagnosis of infectious and non-infectious lower airway disorders. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Congress of WEVA. Marrakech, Morocco, 2006. p. 71–7.
  3. [25]Roelants B. Comparison of deep nasopharyngeal swab, bronchoalveolar lavage and transtracheal wash for the diagnosis of infectious bronchopneumonia in calves: which one is most animal friendly? Master students thesis 2018 Ghent University Available at: https://lib.ugent.be/catalog/rug01:002481486
  4. [27]Van Driessche L. It’s about time. Rapid detection and susceptibility testing of Pasteurellaceae causing respiratory disease in cattle by MALDI-TOF MS [PhD thesis] 2019 Ghent University Merelbeke (Belgium) 1 279
  5. [31]Bokma J, Van Driessche L, Deprez P, et al. Rapid identification of mycoplasma bovis from bovine bronchoalveolar lavage fluid with MALDI-TOF MS after enrichment procedure. J Clin Microbiol 2020. [Epub ahead of print]. PMC7269393 32229599

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pardon, B., & Buczinski, S.
Affiliations
  • Ghent University (BE)
  • Université de Montréal (CA)
Corresponding author
Pardon, Bart
Venue
Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-07
Volume
36
Issue
2
Pages
425-444
ISSN
0749-0720 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3026732564
Cited by
97
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 1
FWCI
1.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Veterinary Clinics of North America Food Animal Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Microbial infections and disease research
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Virus Infections Studies
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Veterinary medicine and infectious diseases
Keywords
bovine respiratory disease, outbreak diagnosis, nasopharyngeal swab, bronchoalveolar lavage, bacterial culture, PCR, opportunistic pathogens, cattle
MeSH terms
Animals, Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid, Cattle, Polymerase Chain Reaction, Spectrometry, Mass, Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption-Ionization, Bovine Respiratory Disease Complex, High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review