Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28676125›Full record

ReviewBMC veterinary research2017

Antimicrobial drug use in food-producing animals and associated human health risks: what, and how strong, is the evidence?

Karin Hoelzer, Nora Wong, Joe Thomas, Kathy Talkington, Elizabeth Jungman, Allan Coukell

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC veterinary research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 131 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
131citing 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

131 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Impact of lactic acid bacteria andVeterinary and animal science · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Exogenous prostaglandin DFrontiers in veterinary science · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Unravelling Antimicrobial Resistance inVeterinary sciences · 2024
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase-ProducingAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review

71 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

6 authors.

Karin HoelzerThe Pew Charitable Trusts, 901 E Street NW, Washington, DC, 20004, USA. khoelzer@pewtrusts.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2350-1062
Nora WongThe Pew Charitable Trusts, 901 E Street NW, Washington, DC, 20004, USA.
Joe ThomasThe Pew Charitable Trusts, 901 E Street NW, Washington, DC, 20004, USA.
Kathy TalkingtonThe Pew Charitable Trusts, 901 E Street NW, Washington, DC, 20004, USA.
Elizabeth JungmanThe Pew Charitable Trusts, 901 E Street NW, Washington, DC, 20004, USA.
Allan CoukellThe Pew Charitable Trusts, 901 E Street NW, Washington, DC, 20004, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAntimicrobial resistance is a public health threat. Because antimicrobial consumption in food-producing animals contributes to the problem, policies restricting the inappropriate or unnecessary agricultural use of antimicrobial drugs are important. However, this link between agricultural antibiotic use and antibiotic resistance has remained contested by some, with potentially disruptive effects on efforts to move towards the judicious or prudent use of these drugs. MAIN TEXT: The goal of this review is to systematically evaluate the types of evidence available for each step in the causal pathway from antimicrobial use on farms to human public health risk, and to evaluate the strength of evidence within a 'Grades of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation'(GRADE) framework. The review clearly demonstrates that there is compelling scientific evidence available to support each step in the causal pathway, from antimicrobial use on farms to a public health burden caused by infections with resistant pathogens. Importantly, the pathogen, antimicrobial drug and treatment regimen, and general setting (e.g., feed type) can have significant impacts on how quickly resistance emerges or spreads, for how long resistance may persist after antimicrobial exposures cease, and what public health impacts may be associated with antimicrobial use on farms. Therefore an exact quantification of the public health burden attributable to antimicrobial drug use in animal agriculture compared to other sources remains challenging.

conclusionsEven though more research is needed to close existing data gaps, obtain a better understanding of how antimicrobial drugs are actually used on farms or feedlots, and quantify the risk associated with antimicrobial use in animal agriculture, these findings reinforce the need to act now and restrict antibiotic use in animal agriculture to those instances necessary to ensure the health and well-being of the animals.

Indexed as

Drug Resistance, MicrobialAnimal FeedAnimal HusbandryAnimalsAnti-Infective AgentsBacteriaFoodborne DiseasesHumansLivestockPoultryPublic HealthRisk AssessmentAnti-Infective AgentsAntimicrobial drug useAntimicrobial resistanceFarm animalsPublic health risk

Identifiers

PMID28676125
PMCPMC5496648

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.