Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24630404›Full record

ArticlePreventive veterinary medicine2014

Comparison of two methods for collecting antibiotic use data on small dairy farms.

L E Redding, F Cubas-Delgado, M D Sammel, G Smith, D T Galligan, M Z Levy, S Hennessy

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

L E ReddingSchool of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Electronic address: lredding@vet.upenn.edu.
F Cubas-DelgadoUniversidad Nacional de Cajamarca, Department of Veterinary Medicine, Peru.
M D SammelCenter for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
G SmithSchool of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA; Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
D T GalliganSchool of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
M Z LevyCenter for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
S HennessyCenter for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Funding

MEDICAL SCIENTIST TRAINING PROGRAMT32GM007170 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI BRASS, LAWRENCE F · 1985 to 2022
$54.0M
VMD-PhD Training in Infectious Disease-Related ResearchT32AI070077 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Michael Lee Atchison · 2008 to 2026
$3.5M
NIAID NIH HHS T32 AI070077NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM007170
6 · The paper itself

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

Animal HusbandryCattleDairyingDrug UtilizationAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsData CollectionPeruRural PopulationSocioeconomic FactorsAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntibiotic useDairy farmsLower-middle income countries

Identifiers

PMID24630404
PMCPMC4197167

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.