CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 60Microbial infections and disease researchVeterinary medicine and infectious diseasesAntibiotic Use and Resistance

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of injectable antibiotic options for the control of bovine respiratory disease in the first 45 days post arrival at the feedlot

Open access
O'Connor, A. M., Hu, D., Totton, S. C., Scott, N., Winder, C. B., Wang, B., Wang, C., Glanville, J. +5 more·2019·Animal Health Research Reviews
DOI 10.1017/s1466252320000031
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to determine the comparative efficacy of antibiotics used to control bovine respiratory disease (BRD) in beef cattle on feedlots. The information sources for the review were: MEDLINE®, MEDLINE In-Process and MEDLINE® Daily, AGRICOLA, Epub Ahead of Print, Cambridge Agricultural and Biological Index, Science Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index – Science, the Proceedings of the American Association of Bovine Practitioners, World Buiatrics Conference, and the United States Food and Drug Administration Freedom of Information New Animal Drug Applications summaries. The eligible population was weaned beef cattle raised in intensive systems. The interventions of interest were injectable antibiotics used at the time the cattle arrived at the feedlot. The outcome of interest was the diagnosis of BRD within 45 days of arrival at the feedlot. The network meta-analysis included data from 46 studies and 167 study arms identified in the review. The results suggest that macrolides are the most effective antibiotics for the reduction of BRD incidence. Injectable oxytetracycline effectively controlled BRD compared with no antibiotics; however, it was less effective than macrolide treatment. Because oxytetracycline is already commonly used to prevent, control, and treat BRD in groups of feedlot cattle, the use of injectable oxytetracycline for BRD control might have advantages from an antibiotic stewardship perspective.

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 · 10.1017/s1466252320000031

Cites

5 of 5 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?

  • Many respondents relied on empirical selection, choosing high-efficacy, long-acting macrolides like tulathromycin or tildipirosin to reduce treatment frequency and animal stress.

    “While respondents prioritised bacterial susceptibility, many still relied on empirical selection, choosing high-efficacy, long-acting macrolides like tulathromycin or tildipirosin to reduce treatment frequency and animal stress, consistent with previous studies (57, 58).”

    From Understanding antibiotic decision-making for bovine respiratory disease: a survey of UK farm veterinarians (2026) · cites this paper as [57]

    The Summary of the evidence (page not provided) ranks macrolide regimens, including tulathromycin and tildipirosin, among the most effective options for controlling bovine respiratory disease in feedlot cattle. It does not report respondents’ empirical selection practices or say that they chose these drugs to reduce treatment frequency or animal stress. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    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: 33

  1. Abell KM, Theurer ME, Larson RL, White BJ and Apley M (2017) A mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis of metaphylaxis treatments for bovine respiratory disease in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 95, 626-635.
  2. Amrine D, White B, Goehl D, Sweiger SH, Nosky B and Tessman RK (2014) Comparisons of metaphylactic treatments of Zactran® (gamithromycin) vs. Excede® (ceftiofur crystalline free acid) in high risk, stocker calves. International Journal of Applied Research in Veterinary Medicine 12, 221-228.
  3. Anholt RM, Klima C, Allan N, Matheson-Bird H, Schatz C, Ajitkumar P, Otto SJ, Peters D, Schmid K, Olson M, McAllister T and Ralston B (2017) Antimicrobial susceptibility of bacteria that cause bovine respiratory disease complex in Alberta, Canada. Frontiers in Veterinary Science 4, 207. Available at https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fvets.2017.00207. · DOI
  4. Baptiste KE and Kyvsgaard NC (2017) Do antimicrobial mass medications work? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials investigating antimicrobial prophylaxis or metaphylaxis against naturally occurring bovine respiratory disease. Pathogens and Disease 75. doi: 10.1093/femspd/ftx083 · DOI
  5. Cusack PMV (2004) Effect of mass medication with antibiotics at feedlot entry on the health and growth rate of cattle destined for the Australian domestic market. Australian Veterinary Journal 82, 154-156.
  6. DeDonder KD, Apley MD, Li M, Gehring R, Harhay DM, Lubbers BV, White BJ, Capik SF, KuKanich B, Riviere JE and Tessman RK (2016) Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of gamithromycin in pulmonary epithelial lining fluid in naturally occurring bovine respiratory disease in multisource commingled feedlot cattle. Journal of Veterinary Pharmacology & Therapeutics 39, 157-166.
  7. Duff GC, Walker DA, Malcolm-Callis KJ, Wiseman MW and Hallford DM (2000) Effects of preshipping vs. arrival medication with tilmicosin phos- phate and feeding chlortetracycline on health and performance of newly received beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 78, 267-274.
  8. European Union Commission (2015) Commission notice, Official Journal of the European Union, Guidelines for the prudent use of antimicrobials in veterinary medicine, (2015/C 299/04). Available at https://ec.europa.eu/ health//sites/health/files/antimicrobial_resistance/docs/2015_prudent_use_ guidelines_en.pdf (Accessed 4 November 2019).
  9. Frank GH and Duff GC (2000) Effects of tilmicosin phosphate, administered prior to transport or at time of arrival, and feeding of chlortetracycline, after arrival in a feedlot, on Mannheimia haemolytica in nasal secretions of transported steers. American Journal of Veterinary Research 61, 1479- 1483.
  10. Galyean ML, Gunter SA and Malcolm-Callis KJ (1995) Effects of arrival medication with tilmicosin phosphate on health and performance of newly received beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73, 1219-1226.
  11. Glynn HF, Robert EB, Glenn CD, Raymond WL and Charles WP (2002) Effects of vaccination prior to transit and administration of florfenicol at time of arrival in a feedlot on the health of transported calves and detection of Mannheimia haemolytica in nasal secretions. American Journal of Veterinary Research 63, 251-256.
  12. Guichon PT, Booker CW and Jim GK (1993) Comparison of two formula- tions of oxytetracycline given prophylactically to reduce the incidence of bovine respiratory disease in feedlot calves. Canadian Veterinary Journal 34, 736-741.
  13. Harland RJ, Jim GK, Guichon PT, Townsend HG and Janzen ED (1991) Efficacy of parenteral antibiotics for disease prophylaxis in feedlot calves. Canadian Veterinary Journal 32, 163-168.
  14. Hendrick SH, Bateman KG and Rosengren LB (2013) The effect of anti- microbial treatment and preventive strategies on bovine respiratory disease and genetic relatedness and antimicrobial resistance of Mycoplasma bovis isolates in a western Canadian feedlot. Canadian Veterinary Journal 54, 1146-1156.
  15. Higgins J, Sterne J, Savović J, Page M, Hróbjartsson A, Boutron I, Reeves B, Eldridge S (2016) A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. In Cochrane Methods, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 10 (Suppl 1). 10.1002/14651858.CD201601. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Hu D, Wang C and O'Connor AM (2019) A method of back-calculating the log odds ratio and standard error of the log odds ratio from the reported group-level risk of disease. bioRxiv. Available at https://www.biorxiv.org/ content/early/2019/09/06/760942.
  17. Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, Chaimani A, Schmid CH, Cameron C, Ioannidis JP, Straus S, Thorlund K, Jansen JP, Mulrow C, Catala-Lopez F, Gotzsche PC, Dickersin K, Boutron I, Altman DG and Moher D (2015) The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Annals of Internal Medicine 162, 777-784.
  18. Landers TF, Cohen B, Wittum TE and Larson EL (2012) A review of anti- biotic use in food animals: perspective, policy, and potential. Public Health Reports (Washington, D.C. 1974) 127, 4-22.
  19. Lin L, Xing A, Kofler MJ and Murad MH (2019) Borrowing of strength from indirect evidence in 40 network meta-analyses. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 106, 41-49.
  20. Lofgreen GP, Addis DG, Dunbar JR and Clark JG (1978) Time of processing calves subjected to marketing and shipping stress. Journal of Animal Science 47, 1324-1328. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas1978.4761324x. · DOI
  21. Martin MJ, Thottathil SE and Newman TB (2015) Antibiotics overuse in ani- mal agriculture: a call to action for health care providers. American Journal of Public Health 105, 2409-2410.
  22. Meeuwse DM and Hibbard B (2002) ExcedeTM vs. Micotil® for control of bovine respiratory disease using a post-metaphylaxis interval. Pfizer Animal Health Technical Bulletin, Zoetis US. Available at https://www.zoe- tisus.com/products/beef/excede/tools-resources.aspx.
  23. Montgomery SP, Sindt JJ, Greenquist MA, Loe ER and Drouillard JS (2008) Comparison of bovine transfer factor and tilmicosin phosphate: effects on health and growth performance of newly arrived feedlot heifers. International Journal of Applied Research in Veterinary Medicine 6, 175- 180.
  24. Morck DW, Merrill JK, Thorlakson BE, Olson ME, Tonkinson LV and Costerton JW (1993) Prophylactic efficacy of tilmicosin for bovine respira- tory tract disease. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 202, 273-277.
  25. Rossi CAS, Vandoni SL, Bonfanti M and Forbes AB (2010) Effects of arrival medication with gamithromycin on bovine respiratory disease in feedlot cattle in Italy. International Journal of Applied Research in Veterinary Medicine 8, 87-96.
  26. Salanti G, Kavvoura FK and Ioannidis JP (2008) Exploring the geometry of treatment networks. Annals of Internal Medicine 148, 544-553.
  27. Schipper IA and Kelling CL (1971) Shipping fever prophylaxis: comparison of vaccine and antibiotics administered following weaning. Canadian Veterinary Journal 12, 172-175.
  28. Schumann FJ, Janzen ED and McKinnon JJ (1990) Prophylactic tilmicosin medication of feedlot calves at arrival. Canadian Veterinary Journal 31, 285-288.
  29. Schunich OC, Guichon PT, Booker CW, Jim GK, Wildman BK, Hill BW, Ward TI, Bauck SW and Jacobsen JA (2002) A comparison of prophylac- tic efficacy of tilmicosin and a new formulation of oxytetracycline in feedlot calves. Canadian Veterinary Journal 43, 355-362.
  30. Siddartha T, Thomson DU, Bello NM, Nosky BJ and Reinhardt CD (2013) Field study of the comparative efficacy of gamithromycin and tulathromycin for the control of undifferentiated bovine respiratory disease complex in beef feedlot calves at high risk of developing respiratory tract disease. American Journal of Veterinary Research 74, 839-846.
  31. Taylor JD, Fulton RW, Lehenbauer TW, Step DL and Confer AW (2010) The epidemiology of bovine respiratory disease: what is the evidence for predisposing factors? Canadian Veterinary Journal 51, 1095-1102.
  32. Tennant TC, Ives SE, Harper LB, Renter DG and Lawrence TE (2014) Comparison of tulathromycin and tilmicosin on the prevalence and severity of bovine respiratory disease in feedlot cattle in association with feedlot per- formance, carcass characteristics, and economic factors. Journal of Animal Science 92, 5203-5213.
  33. A. M. O'Connor et al. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466252320000031 Published online by Cambridge University Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
O'Connor, A. M., Hu, D., Totton, S. C., Scott, N., Winder, C. B., Wang, B., Wang, C., Glanville, J., Wood, H., White, B., Larson, R., Waldner, C., & Sargeant, J. M.
Affiliations
  • Iowa State University (US)
  • University of Guelph (CA)
  • University of Nebraska–Lincoln (US)
  • University of York (GB)
  • Kansas State University (US)
  • University of Saskatchewan (CA)
Corresponding author
O'Connor, A. M.
ORCID
Venue
Animal Health Research Reviews
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2019-12
Volume
20
Issue
2
Pages
163-181
ISSN
  • 1466-2523 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-2654
DOI
10.1017/s1466252320000031
OpenAlex
W3008555742
Cited by
60
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 9 · 2019: 1
FWCI
0.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Animal Health Research Reviews (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Iowa State University Digital Repository (Iowa State University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Pew Charitable Trusts
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Microbial infections and disease research
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Veterinary medicine and infectious diseases
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology › Antibiotic Use and Resistance
Keywords
bovine respiratory disease, injectable antibiotics, feedlot cattle, oxytetracycline, macrolides, antibiotic efficacy, antibiotic stewardship
MeSH terms
Network Meta-Analysis, Animals, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Cattle, United States, Bovine Respiratory Disease Complex

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