A systematic review and meta-analysis of factors associated with anthelmintic resistance in sheep.

BACKGROUND Anthelmintic drugs have been widely used in sheep as a cost-effective means for gastro-intestinal nematode (GIN) control. However, growing anthelmintic resistance (AHR) has created a compelling need to identify evidence-based management recommendations that reduce the risk of further development and impact of AHR. OBJECTIVE To identify, critically assess, and synthesize available data from primary research on factors associated with AHR in sheep. METHODS Publications reporting original observational or experimental research on selected factors associated with AHR in sheep GINs and published after 1974, were identified through two processes. Three electronic databases (PubMed, Agricola, CAB) and Web of Science (a collection of databases) were searched for potentially relevant publications. Additional publications were identified through consultation with experts, manual search of references of included publications and conference proceedings, and information solicited from small ruminant practitioner list-serves. Two independent investigators screened abstracts for relevance. Relevant publications were assessed for risk of systematic bias. Where sufficient data were available, random-effects Meta-Analyses (MAs) were performed to estimate the pooled Odds Ratio (OR) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) of AHR for factors reported in ≥2 publications. RESULTS Of the 1712 abstracts screened for eligibility, 131 were deemed relevant for full publication review. Thirty publications describing 25 individual studies (15 observational studies, 7 challenge trials, and 3 controlled trials) were included in the qualitative synthesis and assessed for systematic bias. Unclear (i.e. not reported, or unable to assess) or high risk of selection bias and confounding bias was found in 93% (14/15) and 60% (9/15) of the observational studies, respectively, while unclear risk of selection bias was identified in all of the trials. Ten independent studies were included in the quantitative synthesis, and MAs were performed for five factors. Only high frequency of treatment was a significant risk factor (OR=4.39; 95% CI=1.59, 12.14), while the remaining 4 variables were marginally significant: mixed-species grazing (OR=1.63; 95% CI=0.66, 4.07); flock size (OR=1.02; 95% CI=0.97, 1.07); use of long-acting drug formulations (OR=2.85; 95% CI=0.79, 10.24); and drench-and-shift pasture management (OR=4.08; 95% CI=0.75, 22.16). CONCLUSIONS While there is abundant literature on the topic of AHR in sheep GINs, few studies have explicitly investigated the association between putative risk or protective factors and AHR. Consequently, several of the current recommendations on parasite management are not evidence-based. Moreover, many of the studies included in this review had a high or unclear risk of systematic bias, highlighting the need to improve study design and/or reporting of future research carried out in this field.

A systematic review on the innervation of peri-implant tissues with special emphasis on the influence of implant placement and loading protocols

OBJECTIVES To systematically review the available literature on the influence of dental implant placement and loading protocols on peri-implant innervation. MATERIAL AND METHODS The database MEDLINE, Cochrane, EMBASE, Web of Science, LILACS, OpenGrey and hand searching were used to identify the studies published up to July 2013, with a populations, exposures and outcomes (PEO) search strategy using MeSH keywords, focusing on the question: Is there, and if so, what is the effect of time between tooth extraction and implant placement or implant loading on neural fibre content in the peri-implant hard and soft tissues? RESULTS Of 683 titles retrieved based on the standardized search strategy, only 10 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria, five evaluating the innervation of peri-implant epithelium, five elucidating the sensory function in peri-implant bone. Three included studies were considered having a methodology of medium quality and the rest were at low quality. All those papers reported a sensory innervation around osseointegrated implants, either in the bone-implant interface or peri-implant epithelium, which expressed a particular innervation pattern. Compared to unloaded implants or extraction sites without implantation, a significant higher density of nerve fibres around loaded dental implants was confirmed. CONCLUSIONS To date, the published literature describes peri-implant innervation with a distinct pattern in hard and soft tissues. Implant loading seems to increase the density of nerve fibres in peri-implant tissues, with insufficient evidence to distinguish between the innervation patterns following immediate and delayed implant placement and loading protocols. Variability in study design and loading protocols across the literature and a high risk of bias in the studies included may contribute to this inconsistency, revealing the need for more uniformity in reporting, randomized controlled trials, longer observation periods and standardization of protocols.