Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30111750›Full record

ReviewAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2018

Antimicrobial Usage in Animal Production: A Review of the Literature with a Focus on Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

Nguyen V Cuong, Pawin Padungtod, Guy Thwaites, Juan J Carrique-Mas

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 93 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
93citing 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

93 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Bovine MastitisAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  4. A pleuromutilin-ciprofloxacin hybrid exhibits potent activity againstFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Antimicrobial usage in broiler poultry farms in Zambia.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. The Global Rise of ESBL-ProducingAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Review
  17. Green Synthesis of Silver Nanoparticle fromAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

33 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

4 authors.

Nguyen V CuongOxford University Clinical Research Unit, 764 Vo Van Kiet, District 5, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. cuongnv@oucru.org.ORCID 0000-0002-6646-2705
Pawin PadungtodEmergency Center for Transboundary Animal Diseases, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Green One UN House Building, 304 Kim Ma, Hanoi, Vietnam. Pawin.Padungtod@fao.org.
Guy ThwaitesOxford University Clinical Research Unit, 764 Vo Van Kiet, District 5, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. gthwaites@oucru.org.ORCID 0000-0002-2858-2087
Juan J Carrique-MasOxford University Clinical Research Unit, 764 Vo Van Kiet, District 5, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. jcarrique-mas@oucru.org.ORCID 0000-0001-9161-8890

Funding

Wellcome Trust 110085/Z/15/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Antimicrobial use (AMU) in animal production is a key contributor to antimicrobial resistance (AMR) worldwide. As consumption of animal protein and associated animal production is forecast to increase markedly over coming years in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), accurate monitoring of AMU has become imperative. We summarized data from 89 scientific studies reporting AMU data in animal production published in English since 1998, identified through the 'ISI Web of Knowledge' search engine. The aims were as follows: (a) to describe methodologies and metrics used to quantify AMU; (b) to summarize qualitative (on-farm prevalence of use) and quantitative (amounts of antimicrobial active principle) data, in order to identify food animal species at the highest risk of AMU; and (c) to highlight data gaps from LMICs. Only 17/89 (19.1%) studies were conducted in LMICs. Sixty (67.3%) reported quantitative data use, with 'daily doses per animal-time' being the most common metric. AMU was greatest in chickens (138 doses/1000 animal-days [inter quartile range (IQR) 91.1⁻438.3]), followed by swine (40.2 [IQR 8.5⁻120.4]), and dairy cattle (10.0 [IQR 5.5⁻13.6]). However, per kg of meat produced, AMU was highest in swine, followed by chickens and cattle. Our review highlights a large deficit of data from LMICs, and provides a reference for comparison with further surveillance and research initiatives aiming to reduce AMU in animal production globally.

Indexed as

antimicrobial usecattlechickenslivestockmetricspigspoultry

Identifiers

PMID30111750
PMCPMC6164101

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.