A Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Efficacy of Infectious Bovine Keratoconjunctivitis and assessment of comprehensiveness of reporting

Simple item page
dc.contributor.author Weaver, Olivia
dc.contributor.author O'Connor, Annette
dc.contributor.author Meyer, Ella
dc.contributor.author Doan, Binh
dc.contributor.author Sargeant, Jan
dc.contributor.author O'Connor, Annette
dc.contributor.department Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine
dc.date 2018-07-03T12:42:05.000
dc.date.accessioned 2020-07-07T05:13:59Z
dc.date.available 2020-07-07T05:13:59Z
dc.date.copyright Mon Jan 01 00:00:00 UTC 2018
dc.date.embargo 2018-06-27
dc.date.issued 2018-01-01
dc.description.abstract <p>Infectious bovine keratoconjunctivitis, commonly known as pinkeye, limits production and weight gain in pre-weaned calves, resulting in significant economic loss each year. IBK is one of the most common diseases in pre-weaned calves which leads to clinical signs from mild conjunctivitis to severe ulceration, corneal perforation, and blindness [4]. Due to large economic losses and limits in production and weaning weight, use of effective vaccines to prevent IBK is imperative.</p> <p>Moraxella bovis is the primary causal organism of IBK [4, 5]. However, available evidence does not suggest that vaccination is effective for preventing naturally occurring IBK. Although individual studies and a prior review conducted over a decade ago [4, 6, 7] suggested that autogenous and commercial IBK vaccines are not effective, a systematic review of vaccine efficacy has not been conducted recently. Further, the review conducted by Burns and O'Connor (7), was conducted using an approach not consistent with current systematic review quality standards, therefore it is of interest to know if the results of that review are repeatable. In particular, that review found strong evidence of small study effects, and an association failure to report randomization and blinded outcome assessment and vaccine effect size. However, the study did not evaluate the effect of challenge studies, another cause of small study effects The AMSTAR standards [8] is a frequently used metric for assessing the quality of systematic reviews and the Burns and O'Connor (7) review, of which one of us was the lead author, fails to meet many of those standards.</p>
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf
dc.identifier archive/lib.dr.iastate.edu/vdpam_reports/8/
dc.identifier.articleid 1005
dc.identifier.contextkey 12398452
dc.identifier.s3bucket isulib-bepress-aws-west
dc.identifier.submissionpath vdpam_reports/8
dc.identifier.uri https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/handle/20.500.12876/92153
dc.language.iso en
dc.source.bitstream archive/lib.dr.iastate.edu/vdpam_reports/8/2018_OConnor_Protocol_ProtocolSystematic.pdf|||Sat Jan 15 02:03:03 UTC 2022
dc.subject.disciplines Agricultural Economics
dc.subject.disciplines Large or Food Animal and Equine Medicine
dc.subject.disciplines Veterinary Infectious Diseases
dc.subject.disciplines Veterinary Preventive Medicine, Epidemiology, and Public Health
dc.title A Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Efficacy of Infectious Bovine Keratoconjunctivitis and assessment of comprehensiveness of reporting
dc.type article
dc.type.genre report
dspace.entity.type Publication
relation.isAuthorOfPublication bbd2db96-9105-4b96-8f96-713be18a75ac
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication 5ab07352-4171-4f53-bbd7-ac5d616f7aa8
File
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Name:
2018_OConnor_Protocol_ProtocolSystematic.pdf
Size:
520.07 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download
Collections
Publications