A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Comparing pooled and individual samples for estimation of gastrointestinal strongyles burden and treatment efficacy in small ruminants. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Monitoring endoparasite burden (FEC) and treatment efficacy (FECR) is a key element of sustainable parasite control. However, the costs of the analysis often discourage their implementation by farmers and veterinary practitioners. Pooling samples is considered to be a good alternative to reduce time and monetary costs, but limited data are available on the use of pooled samples in small ruminants, especially for goats. In this study, data collected over the years in sheep and goat farms were analyzed, and results obtained from individual and pooled analysis were compared for the purposes of FEC and FECR assessment. A total of 801 individual and 134 pooled samples (composed of 3-12 individual samples) were included. For FECR testing, 2 pools of 5 samples each were created per trial and the same animals were sampled at day 0 (D0 - treatment day) and 14 days after (D14). Samples were analyzed by McMaster technique (limit of detection 20 EPG). Results from pooled and individual FEC were not significantly different (Wilcoxon signed-rank test) and correlation (Spearman's rank test) was high for all sub-categories, although agreement (Lin's concordance correlation) was often classified as poor. Results were not influenced by the pool size (<6 or ≥6). Interpretation of treatment efficacy between the two methods was comparable for all sheep trials, while it differed for goats in 4 out of 10 trials. Wilcoxon signed-rank test indicated a non significant difference between pooled and individual FECR. However, correlation and agreement between FECR were considerably better for sheep compared to goats, for which they were very limited, despite the correlation between FEC at D0 and D14 was always high. According to our results, pooled FECR can be a good option but the absence of 95 %CI represents a major drawbacks in the interpretation of results. Further studies on the topic for goats are needed.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vetpar.2023.109935DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

pooled individual
8
individual samples
8
treatment efficacy
8
small ruminants
8
pooled samples
8
samples
7
individual
5
comparing pooled
4
samples estimation
4
estimation gastrointestinal
4

Similar Publications