Erratum to: Comparison of calculation methods used for the determination of anthelmintic resistance in sheep in a temperate continental climate

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：L. C. Falzon (1) (5)
  J. van Leeuwen (2)
  P. I. Menzies (1)
  A. Jones-Bitton (1)
  W. Sears (1)
  J. T. Jansen (3)
  A. S. Peregrine (4)
  
  1. Department of Population Medicine ; Ontario Veterinary College ; University of Guelph ; Guelph ; ON ; N1G 2W1 ; Canada
  5. Veterinary Public Health Institute ; Vetsuisse Faculty ; University of Bern ; Schwarzenburgstrasse ; 155 ; 3097 ; Liebefeld ; Switzerland
  2. Centre for Veterinary Epidemiological Research ; Department of Health Management ; Atlantic Veterinary College ; University of Prince Edward Island ; Charlottetown ; PE ; C1A 4P3 ; Canada
  3. Veterinary Science and Policy ; Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food ; Elora ; ON ; N0B 1S0 ; Canada
  4. Department of Pathobiology ; Ontario Veterinary College ; University of Guelph ; Guelph ; ON ; N1G 2W1 ; Canada
  
• 关键词：Gastrointestinal nematodes ; Fecal egg count reduction calculation methods ; Arithmetic mean ; Geometric mean ; Bias correction term ; Kappa
• 刊名：Parasitology Research
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：April 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：114
• 期：4
• 页码：1631-1643
• 全文大小：334 KB
• 参考文献：1. Abbott KA, Taylor MA, Stubbings LA (2009) Sustainable worm control strategies for sheep. 3rd edn. A technical manual for veterinary surgeons and advisers. 51聽pp. Sustainable Control of Parasites in Sheep (SCOPS) and printed by: Context Publications.
  2. Cabaret, J, Berrag, B (2004) Fecal egg count reduction test for assessing anthelmintic efficacy: average versus individually based estimations. Vet Parasitol 121: pp. 105-113 CrossRef
  3. Coles, GC, Bauer, C, Borgsteede, FHM, Geerts, S, Klei, TR, Taylor, MA, Waller, PJ (1992) World Association for the Advancement of Veterinary Parasitology (W.A.A.V.P.) methods for the detection of anthelmintic resistance in nematodes of veterinary importance. Vet Parasitol 44: pp. 35-44 CrossRef
  4. Coles, GC, Jackson, F, Pomroy, WE, Prichard, RK, Samson-Himmelstjerna, G, Silvestre, A, Taylor, MA, Vercruysse, J (2006) The detection of anthelmintic resistance in nematodes of veterinary importance. Vet Parasitol 136: pp. 167-185 CrossRef
  5. Dash, K, Hall, K, Barger, IA (1988) The role of arithmetic and geometric worm egg counts in faecal egg count reduction tests and in monitoring strategic drenching programs in sheep. Aust Vet J 65: pp. 66-68 CrossRef
  6. Denwood, M, Reid, SWJ, Love, S, Nielsen, MK, Matthews, L, McKendrick, IJ, Innocent, GT (2010) Comparison of three alternative methods for analysis of equine faecal egg count reduction test data. Prev Vet Med 93: pp. 316-323 CrossRef
  7. Dobson, RJ, Sangster, NC, Besier, RB, Woodgate, RG (2009) Geometric means provide a biased efficacy result when conducting a faecal egg count reduction test (FECRT). Vet Parasitol 161: pp. 162-167 CrossRef
  8. Dobson, RJ, Hosking, BC, Jacobson, CL, Cotter, JL, Besier, RB, Stein, PA, Reid, SA (2012) Preserving new anthelmintics: a simple method for estimating faecal egg count reduction test (FECRT) confidence limits when efficacy and/or nematode aggregation is high. Vet Parasitol 186: pp. 79-92 CrossRef
  9. Dohoo I,MartinW, Stryhn H (2009)Veterinary Epidemiologic Research- Model-Building Strategies (ISBN: 978-0-919013-60-5). 2nd edn. VER Inc., Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, Canada, C1A 8X5. pp. 365鈥?90
  10. El-Abdellati, A, Charlier, J, Geldhor, P, Levecke, B, Demeler, J, Samson-Himmelstjerna, G, Claerebout, E, Vercruysse, J (2010) The use of a simplified faecal egg count reduction test for assessing anthelmintic efficacy on Belgian and German cattle farms. Vet Parasitol 169: pp. 352-357 CrossRef
  11. Falzon, LC, Menzies, PI, Shakya, KP, Jones-Bitton, A, Vanleeuwen, J, Avula, J, Stewart, H, Jansen, JT, Taylor, MA, Learmount, J, Peregrine, AS (2013) Anthelmintic resistance in sheep flocks in Ontario, Canada. Vet Parasitol 193: pp. 150-162 CrossRef
  12. Fulford, AJC (1994) Dispersion and bias: can we trust geometric means?. Parasitol Today 10: pp. 446-448 CrossRef
  13. Jackson, F, Coop, RL (2000) The development of anthelmintic resistance in sheep nematodes. Parasitology 120: pp. S95-S107 CrossRef
  14. Kahn, HA, Sempos, CT (1989) Statistical methods in epidemiology. Oxford Univ. Press, New York
  15. Kaplan, RM (2004) Drug resistance in nematodes of veterinary importance: a status report. Trends Parasitol 20: pp. 477-481 CrossRef
  16. Kaplan, RM, Vidyashankar, AN (2012) An inconvenient truth: global worming and anthelmintic resistance. Vet Parasitol 186: pp. 70-78 CrossRef
  17. Knox, MR, Besier, RB, Jambre, LF, Kaplan, RM, Torres-Acosta, JFJ, Miller, J, Sutherland, I (2012) Novel approaches for the control of helminth parasites of livestock VI: summary of discussion and conclusion. Vet Parasitol 186: pp. 143-149 CrossRef
  18. Levecke, B, Rinaldi, L, Charlier, J, Maurelli, MP, Morgoglione, ME, Vercruysse, J, Cringoli, G (2011) Monitoring drug efficacy against gastrointestinal nematodes when faecal egg counts are low: do the analytic sensitivity and the formula matter?. Parasitol Res 109: pp. 953-957 CrossRef
  19. Levecke, B, Dobson, RJ, Speybroeck, N, Vercruysse, J, Charlier, J (2012) Novel insights in the fecal egg count reduction test for monitoring drug efficacy against gastrointestinal nematodes of veterinary importance. Vet Parasitol 188: pp. 391-396 CrossRef
  20. Levecke, B, Rinaldi, L, Charlier, J, Maurelli, MP, Bosco, A, Vercruysse, J, Cringoli, G (2012) The bias, accuracy and precision of faecal egg count reduction test results in cattle using McMaster, Cornell- Wisconsin and FLOTAC egg counting methods. Vet Parasitol 188: pp. 194-199 CrossRef
  21. Littell, RC, Milliken, GA, Stroup, WW, Wolfinger, RD (1996) SAS庐 system for mixed model. SAS Institute Inc, Cary
  22. McKenna, PB (1997) Use of arithmetic and geometric means in the calculation of anthelmintic efficacy. Vet Record 141: pp. 472-473 CrossRef
  23. McKenna, PB (2006) A comparison of faecal egg count reduction test procedures. N Z Vet J 54: pp. 202-203 CrossRef
  24. McKenna, PB (2013) Are multiple pre-treatment groups necessary or unwarranted in faecal egg count reduction tests in sheep?. Vet Parasitol 196: pp. 433-437 CrossRef
  25. Mejia, MD, Fernandez, IB, Schmidt, EE, Cabaret, J (2003) Multispecies and multiple anthelmintic resistance on cattle nematodes in a farm in Argentina: the beginning of high resistance?. Vet Res 34: pp. 461-467 CrossRef
  26. Miller, CM, Waghorn, TS, Leathwick, DM, Gilmour, ML (2006) How repeatable is a faecal egg count reduction test?. NZVet J 54: pp. 323-328
  27. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1986) Manual of veterinary parasitological laboratory techniques. Technical Bulletin No. 18. HMSO, London, 124聽pp
  28. Mood, AM, Graybill, FA, Boes, DC (1974) Introduction to the theory of statistics. McGraw-Hill, New York
  29. Papadopoulos, E, Gallidis, E, Ptochos, S (2012) Anthelmintic resistance in sheep in Europe: a selected review. Vet Parasitol 189: pp. 85-88 CrossRef
  30. Presidente, PJA Methods for detection of resistance to anthelmintics. In: Anderson, N, Waller, PJ eds. (1985) Resistance in nematodes to anthelmintic drugs. CSIRO Division of Animal Health, Glebe, pp. 13-28
  31. Prichard, RK, Hall, CA, Kelly, JD, Martin, ICA, Donald, AD (1980) The problem of anthelmintic resistance in nematodes. Aust Vet J 56: pp. 239-250 CrossRef
  32. Sargison, ND (2008) Sheep flock health: a planned approach. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford CrossRef
  33. Smothers, CD, Sun, F, Dayton, AD (1999) Comparison of arithmetic and geometric means as measures of a central tendency in cattle nematode populations. Vet Parasitol 81: pp. 211-224 CrossRef
  34. Sutherland, I, Scott, I (2010) Gastrointestinal nematodes of sheep and cattle. Biology and control. Wiley, West Sussex
  35. Torgerson, PR, Schnyder, M, Hertzberg, H (2005) Detection of anthelmintic resistance: a comparison of mathematical techniques. Vet Parasitol 128: pp. 291-298 CrossRef
  36. Torres-Acosta, JFJ, Mendoza-de-Gives, P, Aguilar-Caballero, AJ, Cu茅llar-Ordaz, JA (2012) Anthelmintic resistance in sheep farms: update of the situation in the American continent. Vet Parasitol 189: pp. 89-96 CrossRef
  37. Wyk, JA, Groeneveld, HT (1997) Comments on the paper World Association for the Advancement of Veterinary Parasitology (W.A.A.V.P.) second edition of guidelines for evaluating the efficacy of anthelmintics in ruminants (bovine, ovine, caprine). Vet Parasitol 70: pp. 283-288 CrossRef
  38. Wood, IB, Amaral, NK, Bairden, K, Duncan, JL, Kassai, T, Malone, JB, Pankavich, JA, Reinecke, RK, Slocombe, O, Taylor, SM, Vercruysse, J (1995) World Association for the Advancement of Veterinary Parasitology (W.A.A.V.P.) second edition of guidelines for evaluating the efficacy of anthelmintics in ruminants (bovine, ovine, caprine). Vet Parasitol 58: pp. 181-213 CrossRef
  
• 刊物类别：Biomedical and Life Sciences
• 刊物主题：Biomedicine
  Medical Microbiology
  Microbiology
  Immunology
  
• 出版者：Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
• ISSN：1432-1955

文摘

This study compared results obtained with five different fecal egg count reduction (FECR) calculation methods for defining resistance to ivermectin, fenbendazole, and levamisole in gastrointestinal nematodes of sheep in a temperate continental climate: FECR1 and FECR2 used pre-and posttreatment fecal egg count (FEC) means from both treated and control animals, but FECR1 used arithmetic means, whereas FECR2 used geometric means; FECR3 used arithmetic means for pre- and posttreatment FECs from treated animals only; FECR4 was calculated using only arithmetic means for posttreatment FECs from treated and control animals; and FECR5 was calculated using mean FEC estimates from a general linear mixed model. The classification of farm anthelmintic resistance (AR) status varied, depending on which FECR calculation method was used and whether a bias correction term (BCT, i.e., half the minimum detection limit) was added to the zeroes or not. Overall, agreement between all methods was higher when a BCT was used, particularly when levels of resistance were low. FECR4 showed the highest agreement with all the other FECR methods. We therefore recommend that small ruminant clinicians use the FECR4 formula with a BCT for AR determination, as this would reduce the cost of the FECRT, while still minimizing bias and allowing for comparisons between different farms. For researchers, we recommend the use of FECR1 or FECR2, as the inclusion of both pre- and posttreatment FECs and use of randomly allocated animals in treatment and control groups makes these methods mathematically more likely to estimate the true anthelmintic efficacy.