03419naa a2200289 a 450000100080000000500110000800800410001902400410006010000170010124501030011826000090022150001040023052024520033465000110278665300220279765300350281965300320285465300250288665300430291170000190295470000180297370000200299170000210301170000190303270000160305177300620306710500712019-09-30       2014    bl uuuu     u00u1 u    #d7 a10.1016/j.prevetmed.2014.07.0032DOI1 aFALZON, L.C.  aA systematic review and meta-analysis of factors associated with anthelmintic resistance in sheep.  c2014  aArticle history: Received 5 March 2014; Received in revised form 27 May 2014; Accepted 3 July 2014.  aBackground: Anthelmintic drugs have been widely used in sheep as a cost-effective meansfor gastro-intestinal nematode (GIN) control. However, growing anthelmintic resistance(AHR) has created a compelling need to identify evidence-based management recommen-dations that reduce the risk of further development and impact of AHR.Objective: To identify, critically assess, and synthesize available data from primary researchon factors associated with AHR in sheep.Methods: Publications reporting original observational or experimental research on selectedfactors associated with AHR in sheep GINs and published after 1974, were identified throughtwo processes. Three electronic databases (PubMed, Agricola, CAB) and Web of Science (acollection of databases) were searched for potentially relevant publications. Additional pub-lications were identified through consultation with experts, manual search of referencesof included publications and conference proceedings, and information solicited from smallruminant practitioner list-serves. Two independent investigators screened abstracts for rel-evance. Relevant publications were assessed for risk of systematic bias. Where sufficientdata were available, random-effects Meta-Analyses (MAs) were performed to estimate thepooled 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 fullpublication review. Thirty publications describing 25 individual studies (15 observationalstudies, 7 challenge trials, and 3 controlled trials) were included in the qualitative synthesisand assessed for systematic bias. Unclear (i.e. not reported, or unable to assess) or high riskof selection bias and confounding bias was found in 93% (14/15) and 60% (9/15) of theobservational studies, respectively, while unclear risk of selection bias was identified in allof the trials. Ten independent studies were included in the quantitative synthesis, and MAswere performed for five factors. Only high frequency of treatment was a significant riskfactor (OR = 4.39; 95% CI = 1.59, 12.14), while the remaining 4 variables were marginallysignificant: 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); anddrench-and-shift pasture management (OR = 4.08; 95% CI = 0.75, 22.16).  aOVINOS  aDRENCH RESISTANCE  aEVIDENCE-BASED RECOMMENDATIONS  aGASTRO-INTESTINAL NEMATODES  aMANAGEMENT PRACTICES  aQUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE SYNTHESIS1 aO´NEILL, T.J.1 aMENZIES, P.I.1 aPEREGRINE, A.S.1 aJONES-BITTON, A.1 aVANLEEUWEN, J.1 aMEDEROS, A.  tPreventive Veterinary Medicine, 2014gv. 117, p. 388-402.