Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30147798›Full record

ReviewSustainability science2018

Unpacking factors influencing antimicrobial use in global aquaculture and their implication for management: a review from a systems perspective.

Patrik J G Henriksson, Andreu Rico, Max Troell, Dane H Klinger, Alejandro H Buschmann, Sonja Saksida, Mohan V Chadag, Wenbo Zhang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Sustainability science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 81 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
81citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

81 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Temporal transcriptomic profiling of channel catfish (Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. The future of antibiotic use in livestock.Nature communications · 2025
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

21 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

8 authors.

Patrik J G Henriksson1Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Kräftriket 2B, 10691 Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-3439-623X
Andreu Rico3IMDEA Water Institute, Science and Technology Campus of the University of Alcalá, Avenida Punto Com 2, P.O. Box 28805, Alcalá de Henares, Madrid Spain.
Max Troell1Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Kräftriket 2B, 10691 Stockholm, Sweden.
Dane H Klinger5Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544 USA.
Alejandro H Buschmann6Centro i-mar and CeBiB, Universidad de Los Lagos, Puerto Montt, Chile.
Sonja Saksida7Aquaculture Management Division, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
Mohan V Chadag2WorldFish, Jalan Batu Maung, Batu Maung, 11960 Bayan Lepas, Penang Malaysia.
Wenbo Zhang8College of Fisheries and Life Science, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai, 201306 China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Global seafood provides almost 20% of all animal protein in diets, and aquaculture is, despite weakening trends, the fastest growing food sector worldwide. Recent increases in production have largely been achieved through intensification of existing farming systems, resulting in higher risks of disease outbreaks. This has led to increased use of antimicrobials (AMs) and consequent antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in many farming sectors, which may compromise the treatment of bacterial infections in the aquaculture species itself and increase the risks of AMR in humans through zoonotic diseases or through the transfer of AMR genes to human bacteria. Multiple stakeholders have, as a result, criticized the aquaculture industry, resulting in consequent regulations in some countries. AM use in aquaculture differs from that in livestock farming due to aquaculture's greater diversity of species and farming systems, alternative means of AM application, and less consolidated farming practices in many regions. This, together with less research on AM use in aquaculture in general, suggests that large data gaps persist with regards to its overall use, breakdowns by species and system, and how AMs become distributed in, and impact on, the overall social-ecological systems in which they are embedded. This paper identifies the main factors (and challenges) behind application rates, which enables discussion of mitigation pathways. From a set of identified key mechanisms for AM usage, six proximate factors are identified: vulnerability to bacterial disease, AM access, disease diagnostic capacity, AMR, target markets and food safety regulations, and certification. Building upon these can enable local governments to reduce AM use through farmer training, spatial planning, assistance with disease identification, and stricter regulations. National governments and international organizations could, in turn, assist with disease-free juveniles and vaccines, enforce rigid monitoring of the quantity and quality of AMs used by farmers and the AM residues in the farmed species and in the environment, and promote measures to reduce potential human health risks associated with AMR.

Indexed as

AntibioticsAntimicrobialsAquacultureFishResistanceSeafood

Identifiers

PMID30147798
PMCPMC6086308

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.