Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30245833›Full record

ArticleVeterinary record open2018

Expert opinion on livestock antimicrobial usage indications and patterns in Denmark, Portugal and Switzerland.

Luís Pedro Carmo, Ilias Bouzalas, Liza Rosenbaum Nielsen, Lis Alban, Paulo Martins da Costa, Cedric Müntener, Gertraud Schüpbach, Yandy Abreu, Ioannis Magouras

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Veterinary record open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 6 countries.

Luís Pedro CarmoVeterinary Public Health Institute, Vetsuisse, University of Bern, Liebefeld, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-7367-5178
Ilias BouzalasVeterinary Public Health Institute, Vetsuisse, University of Bern, Liebefeld, Bern, Switzerland.
Liza Rosenbaum NielsenDepartment of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Lis AlbanDepartment of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Paulo Martins da CostaICBAS-Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas Abel Salazar, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Cedric MüntenerInstitut für Veterinärpharmakologie und -toxikologie, Vetsuisse, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Gertraud SchüpbachVeterinary Public Health Institute, Vetsuisse, University of Bern, Liebefeld, Bern, Switzerland.
Yandy AbreuVeterinary Public Health Institute, Vetsuisse, University of Bern, Liebefeld, Bern, Switzerland.
Ioannis MagourasVeterinary Public Health Institute, Vetsuisse, University of Bern, Liebefeld, Bern, Switzerland.
University of Bern · CHUniversity of Copenhagen · DKUniversidade do Porto · PTUniversity of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We aimed at describing antimicrobial usage patterns throughout livestock production cycles, and comparing them across three countries from Northern, Central and Southern Europe. Given the difficulties to collect such detailed usage data, an expert opinion was deemed the most appropriate study design. This study provides new insights into the time periods and indications for which specific antimicrobial substances are used in different livestock sectors. Veterinary experts (n=67) from different livestock sectors (broilers, pigs, dairy cattle and veal/fattening calves) and countries (Denmark, Portugal and Switzerland) replied to a questionnaire focusing on the time periods in the production cycle when antimicrobial substances were administered, and the respective indications for treatment. Our results showed that for several antimicrobials, between-country and within-country variations exist regarding the temporal distributions of treatments and indications for use. These differences were also true for several critically important antimicrobials, which is a matter of concern. Furthermore, differences between countries were also evident regarding the antimicrobial substances licensed. Based on our results, it is recommended to establish and promote treatment guidelines, invest in the prevention of diseases during critical moments of the production cycle and target undifferentiated use of antimicrobials. Moreover, discrepancies between countries should be further investigated to better understand the factors underlying the identified patterns and to distinguish prudent from non-prudent use. The results can inform decision-making with the aim to foster antimicrobial prudent use in the veterinary setting and, therefore, protect public health from the threat of antimicrobial resistance.

Indexed as

antimicrobial resistanceantimicrobial useinternational comparisonlivestocktreatment indicationsveterinarians

Identifiers

PMID30245833
PMCPMC6144899
OpenAlexW2891346229

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.