Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28405435›Full record

ArticlePorcine health management2016

Evaluation of the relationship between the biosecurity status, production parameters, herd characteristics and antimicrobial usage in farrow-to-finish pig production in four EU countries.

Merel Postma, Annette Backhans, Lucie Collineau, Svenja Loesken, Marie Sjölund, Catherine Belloc, Ulf Emanuelson, Elisabeth Grosse Beilage, Elisabeth Okholm Nielsen, Katharina D C Stärk and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Porcine health management, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing 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

68 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

12 authors.

Merel PostmaVeterinary Epidemiology Unit, Department of Reproduction, Obstetrics and Herd Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium.
Annette BackhansDepartment of Animal Health and Antimicrobial Strategies, National Veterinary Institute, SVA, SE-751 89 Uppsala, Sweden.
Lucie CollineauSAFOSO AG, Waldeggstrasse 1, CH-3097 Liebefeld, Switzerland.
Svenja LoeskenField Station for Epidemiology, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Büscheler Straße 9, D-49456 Bakum, Germany.
Marie SjölundDepartment of Animal Health and Antimicrobial Strategies, National Veterinary Institute, SVA, SE-751 89 Uppsala, Sweden.
Catherine BellocUMR1300 BioEpAR, LUNAM Université, Oniris, INRA, BP40706, F-44307 Nantes, France.
Ulf EmanuelsonDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 7054, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden.
Elisabeth Grosse BeilageField Station for Epidemiology, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Büscheler Straße 9, D-49456 Bakum, Germany.
Elisabeth Okholm NielsenDanish Agriculture and Food Council, Axeltorv 3, DK-1609 Copenhagen V, Denmark.
Katharina D C StärkSAFOSO AG, Waldeggstrasse 1, CH-3097 Liebefeld, Switzerland.
Jeroen DewulfVeterinary Epidemiology Unit, Department of Reproduction, Obstetrics and Herd Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium.
MINAPIG consortium

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHigh antimicrobial usage and the threat of antimicrobial resistance highlighted the need for reduced antimicrobial usage in pig production. Prevention of disease however, is necessary to obtain a reduced need for antimicrobial treatment. This study aimed at assessing possible associations between the biosecurity level, antimicrobial usage and farm and production characteristics in order to advice on best practices for a low antimicrobial usage and maximum animal health and production. A cross-sectional study was conducted in 227 farrow-to-finish pig herds in Belgium, France, Germany and Sweden between December 2012 and December 2013. Associations between biosecurity status, antimicrobial usage, and production parameters were evaluated with multivariable general linear models, according to an assumed causal pathway.

resultsThe results showed that higher antimicrobial usage in sows tended to be associated with higher antimicrobial usage from birth until slaughter (

conclusionManagement practices such as weaning age and biosecurity measures may be important factors indirectly impacting on antimicrobial usage. We therefore promote a holistic approach when assessing the potential to reduce the need for antimicrobial treatments.

Indexed as

Antimicrobial usageBiosecurityCausal pathPig productionProduction parameters

Identifiers

PMID28405435
PMCPMC5382489

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.