Dataset Information

Comparison of thoracic ultrasonography and thoracic radiography to detect active infectious bronchopneumonia in hospitalized dairy calves.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The best test between thoracic ultrasonography (TUS) and thoracic radiography (TR) or the best combination of tests (series or parallel) to detect active infectious bronchopneumonia (BP) in hospitalized dairy calves remains unknown.

Hypothesis/objectives

To estimate performances of TUS and TR to detect active BP in hospitalized dairy calves and to determine the best strategy for using these tests based on a panel diagnosis method (PDM). Performances of TUS and TR were hypothesized to be equivalent.

Animals

Fifty hospitalized dairy calves (≥7 days old; ≤100 kg; standing; pCO₂ ≥ 53 mm Hg; any reason of presentation).

Methods

Each calf prospectively and sequentially underwent physical examination, thoracic auscultation, blood analyses, and TUS and TR. Three blinded experts determined whether active BP was present/absent based on PDM. Krippendorff's alpha measured interexpert agreement. The sensitivities (Se) and specificities (Sp) of TUS and TR alone and in series or parallel were compared (McNemar's test; P < .05).

Results

Interexpert agreement was moderate at 0.58 (95%CI: 0.42; 0.73). The Se and Sp of TUS were 0.84 (95%CI: 0.60; 0.97) and 0.74 (95%CI: 0.57; 0.86), respectively. The Se and Sp of TR were 0.89 (95%CI: 0.67; 0.99) and 0.58 (95%CI: 0.39; 0.75), respectively. No significant difference was found in the Se and Sp of TUS and TR when analyzed alone, in series or in parallel.

Conclusion

Thoracic ultrasonography or TR alone equally detected active BP in hospitalized dairy calves. Series or parallel analysis provided no additional benefit. Its ease of use and widespread accessibility support using TUS as a first-line test to detect active BP in hospitalized dairy calves.

SUBMITTER: Berman J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8295710 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: There has been very little previous research in Ireland on the farmers' opinions regarding calf welfare issues. Calf welfare, particularly for male dairy calves, has assumed greater importance in Ireland in recent years due, in part, to an increase in the number of dairy cattle over the past decade. The objective of this study was to explore dairy farmers' views on a broad range of issues related to the expansion in the dairy herd. Methods: A survey was developed to capture the views of farmers regarding male dairy calves. The majority of questions were quantitative, and a final open-ended question collected qualitative data. The survey was distributed to ~2,900 dairy farmers via text message and 881 responses were received. Results: The sample was composed almost entirely of dairy farmers, although ~20% also had a beef enterprise on their farm. Fifty eight percent of the farmers were concerned with the increase in the number of male dairy calves in recent years. The EU's abolition of milk quotas, the profitability of dairy farming compared to other farm types, and guidance from farm advisors were the three highest ranked drivers behind the increase in the number of male dairy calves. The three highest ranked options for managing the number of male dairy calves were to increase exports, encourage greater use of sexed semen, and improve the beef merit of these calves. Eighty five percent of respondents stated that individual farmers had responsibility for making changes to the number of male dairy calves. The main themes arising from analysis of the responses to the open-ended question, seeking any additional comments, were breed, beef price, live exports, and sexed semen. Conclusions: Dairy farmers recognized the responsibility they have for making changes in respect of male dairy calves, and many demonstrated a willingness to make changes in this regard. The important role of other stakeholders, particularly suckler (system where reared from calf to beef) farmers, in rearing male dairy calves for beef production was also recognized. However, the issues of who bears the risks and costs associated with greater integration will have to be carefully considered.