The evaluation of the effect of probiotics on the healing of equine distal limb wounds

The effect of dressings saturated with either a standardized suspension of probiotic bacteria or saline on healing of traumatic distal limb wounds in horses was evaluated for 24 days, and the systemic inflammatory effect was assessed. The wounds were divided in two groups based on the phase of heali...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:PloS one 2020-07, Vol.15 (7), p.e0236761-e0236761
Hauptverfasser: Wilmink, Jacintha M, Ladefoged, Soren, Jongbloets, Angelique, Vernooij, Johannes C.M
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page e0236761
container_issue 7
container_start_page e0236761
container_title PloS one
container_volume 15
creator Wilmink, Jacintha M
Ladefoged, Soren
Jongbloets, Angelique
Vernooij, Johannes C.M
description The effect of dressings saturated with either a standardized suspension of probiotic bacteria or saline on healing of traumatic distal limb wounds in horses was evaluated for 24 days, and the systemic inflammatory effect was assessed. The wounds were divided in two groups based on the phase of healing: wounds with an incomplete (ICGB) or a complete granulation bed (CGB). The wound area was expressed as percentage of the wound area at day 0 and defined as relative wound area. The mean relative wound area decreased faster in probiotic than saline treated wounds. The difference was most obvious in CGB and increased rapidly from day 0 until day 12 up to 30%, and stabilized around 25% thereafter until the end of the observation period, but it was not statistically significant because of the large variation within the treatment groups. The mean wound area of CGB decreased to 28.4% (range: 6.3 to 49.3) with probiotic and to 51.9% (range: 29.3 to 81.7) with saline treatment at day 24. Additionally, the rate to 50% healing in CGB was 3.4 faster with probiotic compared to saline treatment, whereas in ICGB this was 1.9 faster. Topical probiotics did not increase serum amyloid A and white blood cell counts. Although the mentioned differences were not statistically significant, the clinical relevance of the effect of treatment with probiotics in CGB wounds is clear, supported by the differences in mean wound area in course of time and the time required to reach 50% healing (day 12 for probiotic vs more than day 24 for saline treated wounds). Thus the probiotic treated wounds reached 50% reduction in wound area in half of the time of the saline treated wounds. The topical use of probiotics can be considered as safe as it did not cause a systemic effect.
doi_str_mv 10.1371/journal.pone.0236761
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2428410518</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A630938505</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_e1c52f47f2074376bbcc4f8fe64f60b9</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A630938505</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-6f700c367316d25d5368090cd0eb3a2f68e67eec6f57c00bfb305fd4ec6a9af43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkl2L1DAUhoso7jr6DwQLgujFjPlq0t4Iy-LHwMKCrnsb0vSkkyFtZpt01X9vulNlK3thcpH2nCdvck7eLHuJ0QZTgd_v_Tj0ym0OvocNIpQLjh9lp7iiZM0Joo_vfZ9kz0LYI1TQkvOn2QklgnDKxGl2fbWDHG6VG1W0vs-9yeMUMQZ0nP4Og6-tj1aHPKWn3A6Us307JeFmtD3kjQ1RudzZrs5_-LFvwvPsiVEuwIt5XWXfP328Ov-yvrj8vD0_u1hrzqu45kYgpNPVKeYNKZqC8hJVSDcIaqqI4SVwAaC5KYRGqDY1RYVpWIqoShlGV9mro-7B-SDnlgRJGCkZRgUuE7E9Eo1Xe3kYbKeGX9IrK-8CfmilGlJ5DiRgXRDDhCFIMCp4XWvNTGmAM8NRXSWtD_NpY91Bo6GPg3IL0WWmtzvZ-lspaIVYgZPA21lg8DcjhCg7GzQ4p3rw4929K1SkMaGv_0Efrm6mWpUKsL3x6Vw9icozTlFFyyI9-irbPECl2UBndfKPsSm-2PBusSExEX7GVo0hyO23r__PXl4v2Tf32MlIcRe8GyfrhSXIjqAefAgDmL9NxkhO9v_TDTnZX872p78B36z1cQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2428410518</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The evaluation of the effect of probiotics on the healing of equine distal limb wounds</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Wilmink, Jacintha M ; Ladefoged, Soren ; Jongbloets, Angelique ; Vernooij, Johannes C.M</creator><contributor>Lin, Yu-Wei</contributor><creatorcontrib>Wilmink, Jacintha M ; Ladefoged, Soren ; Jongbloets, Angelique ; Vernooij, Johannes C.M ; Lin, Yu-Wei</creatorcontrib><description>The effect of dressings saturated with either a standardized suspension of probiotic bacteria or saline on healing of traumatic distal limb wounds in horses was evaluated for 24 days, and the systemic inflammatory effect was assessed. The wounds were divided in two groups based on the phase of healing: wounds with an incomplete (ICGB) or a complete granulation bed (CGB). The wound area was expressed as percentage of the wound area at day 0 and defined as relative wound area. The mean relative wound area decreased faster in probiotic than saline treated wounds. The difference was most obvious in CGB and increased rapidly from day 0 until day 12 up to 30%, and stabilized around 25% thereafter until the end of the observation period, but it was not statistically significant because of the large variation within the treatment groups. The mean wound area of CGB decreased to 28.4% (range: 6.3 to 49.3) with probiotic and to 51.9% (range: 29.3 to 81.7) with saline treatment at day 24. Additionally, the rate to 50% healing in CGB was 3.4 faster with probiotic compared to saline treatment, whereas in ICGB this was 1.9 faster. Topical probiotics did not increase serum amyloid A and white blood cell counts. Although the mentioned differences were not statistically significant, the clinical relevance of the effect of treatment with probiotics in CGB wounds is clear, supported by the differences in mean wound area in course of time and the time required to reach 50% healing (day 12 for probiotic vs more than day 24 for saline treated wounds). Thus the probiotic treated wounds reached 50% reduction in wound area in half of the time of the saline treated wounds. The topical use of probiotics can be considered as safe as it did not cause a systemic effect.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236761</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32726347</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>San Francisco: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Bacteria ; Biofilms ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Care and treatment ; Diabetes ; Dressings ; Evaluation ; Granulation ; Horse diseases ; Horses ; Inflammation ; Leukocytes ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Probiotics ; Statistical analysis ; Statistical significance ; Studies ; Veterinary medicine ; Veterinary research ; Wound dehiscence ; Wound healing ; Wounds</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2020-07, Vol.15 (7), p.e0236761-e0236761</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2020 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2020 Wilmink et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2020 Wilmink et al 2020 Wilmink et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-6f700c367316d25d5368090cd0eb3a2f68e67eec6f57c00bfb305fd4ec6a9af43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-6f700c367316d25d5368090cd0eb3a2f68e67eec6f57c00bfb305fd4ec6a9af43</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3089-6165 ; 0000-0002-2646-9216</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7390451/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7390451/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,724,777,781,861,882,2096,2915,23847,27905,27906,53772,53774,79349,79350</link.rule.ids></links><search><contributor>Lin, Yu-Wei</contributor><creatorcontrib>Wilmink, Jacintha M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ladefoged, Soren</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jongbloets, Angelique</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vernooij, Johannes C.M</creatorcontrib><title>The evaluation of the effect of probiotics on the healing of equine distal limb wounds</title><title>PloS one</title><description>The effect of dressings saturated with either a standardized suspension of probiotic bacteria or saline on healing of traumatic distal limb wounds in horses was evaluated for 24 days, and the systemic inflammatory effect was assessed. The wounds were divided in two groups based on the phase of healing: wounds with an incomplete (ICGB) or a complete granulation bed (CGB). The wound area was expressed as percentage of the wound area at day 0 and defined as relative wound area. The mean relative wound area decreased faster in probiotic than saline treated wounds. The difference was most obvious in CGB and increased rapidly from day 0 until day 12 up to 30%, and stabilized around 25% thereafter until the end of the observation period, but it was not statistically significant because of the large variation within the treatment groups. The mean wound area of CGB decreased to 28.4% (range: 6.3 to 49.3) with probiotic and to 51.9% (range: 29.3 to 81.7) with saline treatment at day 24. Additionally, the rate to 50% healing in CGB was 3.4 faster with probiotic compared to saline treatment, whereas in ICGB this was 1.9 faster. Topical probiotics did not increase serum amyloid A and white blood cell counts. Although the mentioned differences were not statistically significant, the clinical relevance of the effect of treatment with probiotics in CGB wounds is clear, supported by the differences in mean wound area in course of time and the time required to reach 50% healing (day 12 for probiotic vs more than day 24 for saline treated wounds). Thus the probiotic treated wounds reached 50% reduction in wound area in half of the time of the saline treated wounds. The topical use of probiotics can be considered as safe as it did not cause a systemic effect.</description><subject>Bacteria</subject><subject>Biofilms</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Diabetes</subject><subject>Dressings</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Granulation</subject><subject>Horse diseases</subject><subject>Horses</subject><subject>Inflammation</subject><subject>Leukocytes</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Probiotics</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Statistical significance</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Veterinary medicine</subject><subject>Veterinary research</subject><subject>Wound dehiscence</subject><subject>Wound healing</subject><subject>Wounds</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkl2L1DAUhoso7jr6DwQLgujFjPlq0t4Iy-LHwMKCrnsb0vSkkyFtZpt01X9vulNlK3thcpH2nCdvck7eLHuJ0QZTgd_v_Tj0ym0OvocNIpQLjh9lp7iiZM0Joo_vfZ9kz0LYI1TQkvOn2QklgnDKxGl2fbWDHG6VG1W0vs-9yeMUMQZ0nP4Og6-tj1aHPKWn3A6Us307JeFmtD3kjQ1RudzZrs5_-LFvwvPsiVEuwIt5XWXfP328Ov-yvrj8vD0_u1hrzqu45kYgpNPVKeYNKZqC8hJVSDcIaqqI4SVwAaC5KYRGqDY1RYVpWIqoShlGV9mro-7B-SDnlgRJGCkZRgUuE7E9Eo1Xe3kYbKeGX9IrK-8CfmilGlJ5DiRgXRDDhCFIMCp4XWvNTGmAM8NRXSWtD_NpY91Bo6GPg3IL0WWmtzvZ-lspaIVYgZPA21lg8DcjhCg7GzQ4p3rw4929K1SkMaGv_0Efrm6mWpUKsL3x6Vw9icozTlFFyyI9-irbPECl2UBndfKPsSm-2PBusSExEX7GVo0hyO23r__PXl4v2Tf32MlIcRe8GyfrhSXIjqAefAgDmL9NxkhO9v_TDTnZX872p78B36z1cQ</recordid><startdate>20200729</startdate><enddate>20200729</enddate><creator>Wilmink, Jacintha M</creator><creator>Ladefoged, Soren</creator><creator>Jongbloets, Angelique</creator><creator>Vernooij, Johannes C.M</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3089-6165</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2646-9216</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200729</creationdate><title>The evaluation of the effect of probiotics on the healing of equine distal limb wounds</title><author>Wilmink, Jacintha M ; Ladefoged, Soren ; Jongbloets, Angelique ; Vernooij, Johannes C.M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c669t-6f700c367316d25d5368090cd0eb3a2f68e67eec6f57c00bfb305fd4ec6a9af43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Bacteria</topic><topic>Biofilms</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Diabetes</topic><topic>Dressings</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Granulation</topic><topic>Horse diseases</topic><topic>Horses</topic><topic>Inflammation</topic><topic>Leukocytes</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Probiotics</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Statistical significance</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Veterinary medicine</topic><topic>Veterinary research</topic><topic>Wound dehiscence</topic><topic>Wound healing</topic><topic>Wounds</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wilmink, Jacintha M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ladefoged, Soren</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jongbloets, Angelique</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vernooij, Johannes C.M</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wilmink, Jacintha M</au><au>Ladefoged, Soren</au><au>Jongbloets, Angelique</au><au>Vernooij, Johannes C.M</au><au>Lin, Yu-Wei</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The evaluation of the effect of probiotics on the healing of equine distal limb wounds</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><date>2020-07-29</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>e0236761</spage><epage>e0236761</epage><pages>e0236761-e0236761</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>The effect of dressings saturated with either a standardized suspension of probiotic bacteria or saline on healing of traumatic distal limb wounds in horses was evaluated for 24 days, and the systemic inflammatory effect was assessed. The wounds were divided in two groups based on the phase of healing: wounds with an incomplete (ICGB) or a complete granulation bed (CGB). The wound area was expressed as percentage of the wound area at day 0 and defined as relative wound area. The mean relative wound area decreased faster in probiotic than saline treated wounds. The difference was most obvious in CGB and increased rapidly from day 0 until day 12 up to 30%, and stabilized around 25% thereafter until the end of the observation period, but it was not statistically significant because of the large variation within the treatment groups. The mean wound area of CGB decreased to 28.4% (range: 6.3 to 49.3) with probiotic and to 51.9% (range: 29.3 to 81.7) with saline treatment at day 24. Additionally, the rate to 50% healing in CGB was 3.4 faster with probiotic compared to saline treatment, whereas in ICGB this was 1.9 faster. Topical probiotics did not increase serum amyloid A and white blood cell counts. Although the mentioned differences were not statistically significant, the clinical relevance of the effect of treatment with probiotics in CGB wounds is clear, supported by the differences in mean wound area in course of time and the time required to reach 50% healing (day 12 for probiotic vs more than day 24 for saline treated wounds). Thus the probiotic treated wounds reached 50% reduction in wound area in half of the time of the saline treated wounds. The topical use of probiotics can be considered as safe as it did not cause a systemic effect.</abstract><cop>San Francisco</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>32726347</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0236761</doi><tpages>e0236761</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3089-6165</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2646-9216</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1932-6203
ispartof PloS one, 2020-07, Vol.15 (7), p.e0236761-e0236761
issn 1932-6203
1932-6203
language eng
recordid cdi_plos_journals_2428410518
source DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS); EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry
subjects Bacteria
Biofilms
Biology and Life Sciences
Care and treatment
Diabetes
Dressings
Evaluation
Granulation
Horse diseases
Horses
Inflammation
Leukocytes
Medicine and Health Sciences
Probiotics
Statistical analysis
Statistical significance
Studies
Veterinary medicine
Veterinary research
Wound dehiscence
Wound healing
Wounds
title The evaluation of the effect of probiotics on the healing of equine distal limb wounds
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T07%3A55%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20evaluation%20of%20the%20effect%20of%20probiotics%20on%20the%20healing%20of%20equine%20distal%20limb%20wounds&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Wilmink,%20Jacintha%20M&rft.date=2020-07-29&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=e0236761&rft.epage=e0236761&rft.pages=e0236761-e0236761&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0236761&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA630938505%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2428410518&rft_id=info:pmid/32726347&rft_galeid=A630938505&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_e1c52f47f2074376bbcc4f8fe64f60b9&rfr_iscdi=true