Prevention and control of respiratory disease is a major contributor to antibiotic use in swine. A systematic review was conducted to address the question, ‘What is the comparative efficacy of antimicrobials for the prevention of swine respiratory disease?’ Eligible studies were controlled trials published in English evaluating prophylactic antibiotics in swine, where clinical morbidity, mortality, or total antibiotic use was assessed. Four databases and the gray literature were searched for relevant articles. Two reviewers working independently screened titles and abstracts for eligibility followed by full-text articles, and then extracted data and evaluated risk of bias for eligible trials. There were 44 eligible trials from 36 publications. Clinical morbidity was evaluated in eight trials where antibiotics were used in nursery pigs and 10 trials where antibiotics were used in grower pigs. Mortality was measured in 22 trials in nursery pigs and 12 trials in grower pigs. There was heterogeneity in the antibiotic interventions and comparisons published in the literature; thus, there was insufficient evidence to allow quantification of the efficacy, or relative efficacy, of antibiotic interventions. Concerns related to statistical non-independence and quality of reporting were noted in the included trials.

中文翻译：

---

抗生素预防猪呼吸道疾病疗效的系统评价

呼吸道疾病的预防和控制是猪使用抗生素的主要原因。为了解决这个问题，我们进行了一项系统评价，“抗菌剂在预防猪呼吸道疾病方面的比较功效是什么？” 符合条件的研究是用英文发表的对照试验，评估猪的预防性抗生素，评估临床发病率、死亡率或抗生素总使用量。检索了四个数据库和灰色文献中的相关文章。两名审稿人独立筛选标题和摘要的合格性，然后是全文文章，然后提取数据并评估合格试验的偏倚风险。来自 36 篇出版物的 44 项符合条件的试验。在 8 项在保育猪中使用抗生素的试验和 10 项在生长猪中使用抗生素的试验中评估了临床发病率。在 22 项保育猪试验和 12 项生长猪试验中测量了死亡率。文献中发表的抗生素干预和比较存在异质性；因此，没有足够的证据来量化抗生素干预的功效或相对功效。在纳入的试验中注意到与统计非独立性和报告质量相关的问题。没有足够的证据来量化抗生素干预的功效或相对功效。在纳入的试验中注意到与统计非独立性和报告质量相关的问题。没有足够的证据来量化抗生素干预的功效或相对功效。在纳入的试验中注意到与统计非独立性和报告质量相关的问题。