Comparative efficacy of teat sealants given prepartum for prevention of intramammary infections and clinical mastitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. (December 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Winder, C. B.; Sargeant, J. M.; Hu, D.; Wang, C.; Kelton, D. F.; Leblanc, S. J.; Duffield, T. F.; Glanville, J.; Wood, H.; Churchill, K. J.; Dunn, J.; Bergevin, M. D.; Dawkins, K.; Meadows, S.; Deb, B.; Reist, M.; Moody, C.; O'Connor, A. M.
• Is Part Of: Animal health research reviews. Volume 20:Number 2(2019)
• Page Start: 182
• Page End: 198
• Publication Date: 2019-12
• Subjects: dairy cattle, -- dry cow, -- dry-off, -- mixed treatment comparison; Animal health -- Periodicals; Veterinary medicine -- Periodicals; 636.089
• DOI: 10.1017/S1466252319000276
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1466-2523

Abstract

Abstract: A systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted to assess the relative efficacy of internal or external teat sealants given at dry-off in dairy cattle. Controlled trials were eligible if they assessed the use of internal or external teat sealants, with or without concurrent antimicrobial therapy, compared to no treatment or an alternative treatment, and measured one or more of the following outcomes: incidence of intramammary infection (IMI) at calving, IMI during the first 30 days in milk (DIM), or clinical mastitis during the first 30 DIM. Risk of bias was based on the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool with modified signaling questions. From 2280 initially identified records, 32 trials had data extracted for one or more outcomes. Network meta-analysis was conducted for IMI at calving. Use of an internal teat sealant (bismuth subnitrate) significantly reduced the risk of new IMI at calving compared to non-treated controls (RR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.25–0.72). For comparisons between antimicrobial and teat sealant groups, concerns regarding precision were seen. Synthesis of the primary research identified important challenges related to the comparability of outcomes, replication and connection of interventions, and quality of reporting of study conduct.