ArticlePreventive veterinary medicine2014
Comparison of two methods for collecting antibiotic use data on small dairy farms.
Article in Preventive veterinary medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating methods to explore antibiotic use on smallholding pig farms in peri-urban Kenya.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- Case Study: Using a Shared International Database to Document Veterinary Consumption of Antibiotics in Pakistan.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Monitoring of antimicrobial usage among adult bovines in dairy herds of Punjab, India: A quantitative analysis of pattern and frequency.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2023Article
- Antimicrobials use and their indications in dairy farm and individual farmer production conditions in southern India.Tropical animal health and production · 2021Article
- Comparison of Quantification Methods to Estimate Farm-Level Usage of Antimicrobials Other than in Medicated Feed in Dairy Farms from Québec, Canada.Microorganisms · 2021Article
- Knowledge and use of antibiotics among low-income small-scale farmers of Peru.Preventive veterinary medicine · 2021Article
- Antibiotic Use in Organic and Non-organic Swedish Dairy Farms: A Comparison of Three Recording Methods.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2020Article
- First Case Report on Quantification of Antimicrobial Use in Corporate Dairy Farms in Pakistan.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2020Article
- Assignment of Canadian Defined Daily Doses and Canadian Defined Course Doses for Quantification of Antimicrobial Usage in Cattle.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2020Article
- Characterizing Antimicrobial Use in the Livestock Sector in Three South East Asian Countries (Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam).Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Challenges facing the veterinary profession in Ireland: 2. On-farm use of veterinary antimicrobials.Irish veterinary journalArticle
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
Abstract
Antibiotics are commonly used in animal agriculture; they can improve animal health and productivity, but their use may also represent a public health threat. Very little is known about antibiotic use on small farms in lower/middle income countries. To understand antibiotic use on these farms and promote the judicious use of these drugs, pharmacoepidemiologic data are necessary. However, acquiring such data can be difficult, as farmers are often illiterate (and therefore cannot participate in written surveys or keep treatment records), antibiotics can be obtained over-the-counter (in which case no prescriptions are generated) and monitoring and surveillance systems for drug use are often non-existent. The goal of this study was to compare two methods of acquiring pharmacoepidemiologic data pertaining to antibiotics that are well-adapted to farms in lower-middle income countries: self-report and the collection of discarded drug packaging. A convenience sample of 20 farmers in Cajamarca, Peru, participated in the study. Farmers placed discarded antibiotic packaging in bins for six months. At the end of the six-month period, farmers were interviewed and asked to recall the antibiotic usage that occurred on their farm over the past month and past six months; these self-reported data were quantitatively and qualitatively compared to the bin contents collected in the last month and previous six months. We found that the agreement between the bins and self-report was relatively poor for both the quantity and types of antibiotics used. The bins appeared to perform better than self-report when bottles and mLs of antibiotics were measured, while self-report appeared to perform better for intra-mammary infusions. The bins also appeared to perform better when data pertaining to an extended time period (six months) were collected. The results of this study will provide guidance to investigators seeking to collect pharmacoepidemiologic data in similar environments.
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.