IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0326535.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy of antibiotic treatment in controlling colibacillosis in broiler production

Author

Listed:
  • Ronald Vougat Ngom
  • Helena Cardoso de Carvalho Ferreira
  • Gaspard Ayissi
  • Akenghe Tanyienow
  • Alessandra Piccirillo

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate, through a systematic review and meta-analysis, the efficacy of antibiotics in controlling colibacillosis in broiler production, by synthesizing evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The Cochrane method and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed, and the databases CAB abstract, Agricola, PubMed and Web of Science were searched using relevant keywords to identify studies. Eligible studies had to report at least one of the following outcomes: mortality, feed conversion ratio (FCR), condemnations at slaughter and total antibiotic use. Risk of bias (RoB) by outcome of individual study and pairwise meta-analysis by outcome and antibiotic or antibiotics combination, when at least three studies were available, were also conducted. Out of 24,778 articles found in the searched databases, 48 studies were eventually selected. Most of the studies reported mortality as outcome (n = 43) and tested the antibiotic as metaphylactic treatment (n = 41). A total of 47 antibiotics belonging to 18 different classes were tested in the selected studies with enrofloxacin as the most studied. The overall RoB was “some concerns” in 78.2% of studies for mortality outcome and 73.7% for FCR outcome. Meta-analysis showed that doxycycline (0.04; 95% CI 0.02-0.10; P

Suggested Citation

  • Ronald Vougat Ngom & Helena Cardoso de Carvalho Ferreira & Gaspard Ayissi & Akenghe Tanyienow & Alessandra Piccirillo, 2025. "A systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy of antibiotic treatment in controlling colibacillosis in broiler production," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(7), pages 1-34, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0326535
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0326535
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0326535
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0326535&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0326535?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0326535. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.