What do anthelmintic efficacy figures really signify?
- 1 April 1998
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Taylor & Francis in New Zealand Veterinary Journal
- Vol. 46 (2) , 82-83
- https://doi.org/10.1080/00480169.1998.36064
Abstract
Anthelmintic performance is frequently judged on the basis of percentage efficacy and most veterinarians are probably familiar with products claiming “reductions in worm burdens of better than 99%”. However, while there may be many who are acquainted with such claims, there are also likely to be similar numbers who may not realise that, impressive as they are, such efficacy figures may not always reflect practical reality or correspond with the high degree of anthelmintic effectiveness that they appear to imply. The reason for this is not because of any differences in performance against laboratory and field strains of parasites, but simply because of the way in which their efficacies may have been calculated.Keywords
This publication has 5 references indexed in Scilit:
- 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)Published by Elsevier ,2000
- Use of arithmetic and geometric means in the calculation of anthelmintic efficacyVeterinary Record, 1997
- Chemotherapy of Nematode Infections of Veterinary Importance, with Special Reference to Drug ResistanceAdvances in Parasitology, 1995
- The detection of anthelmintic resistance by the faecal egg count reduction test: An examination of some of the factors affecting performance and interpretationNew Zealand Veterinary Journal, 1990
- The role of arithmetic and geometric mean worm egg counts in faecal egg count reduction tests and in monitoring strategic drenching programs in sheepAustralian Veterinary Journal, 1988