ArticleBMC veterinary research2013
Describing antimicrobial use and reported treatment efficacy in Ontario swine using the Ontario Swine Veterinary-based Surveillance program.
Article in BMC veterinary research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Protein nanoparticles assemble in plants, display antigenic viral peptides, and produce an epitope-specific immune response.The FEBS journal · 2026Article
- Seed-Based System for Cost-Effective Production of Vaccine Against Chronic Respiratory Disease in Chickens.Molecular biotechnology · 2023Article
- Plant production of a virus-like particle-based vaccine candidate against porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome.Frontiers in plant science · 2023Article
- Indications and patterns of antimicrobial use in pig farms in the southern Kyushu, Japan: large amounts of tetracyclines used to treat respiratory disease in post-weaning and fattening pigs.The Journal of veterinary medical science · 2021Article
- A new multidrug-resistant enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli pulsed-field gel electrophoresis cluster associated with enrofloxacin non-susceptibility in diseased pigs.Journal of applied microbiology · 2021Article
- Patterns of antibiotic use in global pig production: A systematic review.Veterinary and animal science · 2019Review
- Drivers, alternatives, knowledge, and perceptions towards antimicrobial use among Tennessee beef cattle producers: a qualitative study.BMC veterinary research · 2019Article
- Antimicrobial Usage in Animal Production: A Review of the Literature with a Focus on Low- and Middle-Income Countries.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Review
- Understanding the culture of antimicrobial prescribing in agriculture: a qualitative study of UK pig veterinary surgeons.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2016Article
- Integrating novel data streams to support biosurveillance in commercial livestock production systems in developed countries: challenges and opportunities.Frontiers in public health · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe objective of this work was to retrospectively assess records received through the Ontario Swine Veterinary-based Surveillance program July 2007 - July 2009 to describe and assess relationships between reported treatment failure, antimicrobial use, diagnosis and body system affected.
resultsAntimicrobial use occurred in 676 records, 80.4% of all records recording treatment (840). The most commonly used antimicrobials were penicillin (34.9%), tetracyclines (10.7%) and ceftiofur (7.8%), and the use of multiple antimicrobials occurred in 141/676 records (20.9%). A multi-level logistic regression model was built to describe the probability of reported treatment failure. The odds of reported treatment failure were significantly reduced if the record indicated that the gastro-intestinal (GI) system was affected, as compared to all other body systems (p < 0.05). In contrast, the odds of reported treatment failure increased by 1.98 times if two antimicrobials were used as compared to one antimicrobial (p = 0.009) and by 6.52 times if three or more antimicrobials were used as compared to one antimicrobial (p = 0.005). No significant increase in reported treatment failure was seen between the use of two antimicrobials and three or more antimicrobials. No other antimicrobials were significantly associated with reported treatment failure after controlling for body system and the number of antimicrobials used.
conclusionsFailure of antimicrobial treatment is more likely to occur in non-GI conditions, as compared to GI conditions and the use of multiple antimicrobial products is also associated with an increased probability of antimicrobial treatment failure. The authors suggest that a more preventative approach to herd health should be taken in order to reduce antimicrobial inputs on-farm, including improved immunity via vaccination, management and biosecurity strategies. Furthermore, improved immunity may be viewed as a form of antimicrobial stewardship to the industry by reducing required antimicrobial inputs and consequently, reduced selection pressure for AMR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.