Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30314778›Full record

ArticlePreventive veterinary medicine2018

New approaches to pharmacosurveillance for monitoring prescription frequency, diversity, and co-prescription in a large sentinel network of companion animal veterinary practices in the United Kingdom, 2014-2016.

D A Singleton, F Sánchez-Vizcaíno, E Arsevska, S Dawson, P H Jones, P J M Noble, G L Pinchbeck, N J Williams, A D Radford

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive veterinary medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

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

D A SingletonInstitute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Chester High Road, Neston, CH64 7TE, United Kingdom. Electronic address: D.A.Singleton@liverpool.ac.uk.
F Sánchez-VizcaínoNational Institute for Health Research, Health Protection Research Unit in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections, The Farr Institute @ HeRC, University of Liverpool, Waterhouse Building, Liverpool, L69 3GL, United Kingdom.
E ArsevskaInstitute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Chester High Road, Neston, CH64 7TE, United Kingdom.
S DawsonInstitute of Veterinary Science, University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Chester High Road, Neston, CH64 7TE, United Kingdom.
P H JonesInstitute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Chester High Road, Neston, CH64 7TE, United Kingdom.
P J M NobleInstitute of Veterinary Science, University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Chester High Road, Neston, CH64 7TE, United Kingdom.
G L PinchbeckInstitute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Chester High Road, Neston, CH64 7TE, United Kingdom.
N J WilliamsInstitute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Chester High Road, Neston, CH64 7TE, United Kingdom.
A D RadfordInstitute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Chester High Road, Neston, CH64 7TE, United Kingdom.
University of Liverpool · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pharmaceutical agents (PAs) are commonly prescribed in companion animal practice in the United Kingdom. However, little is known about PA prescription on a population-level, particularly with respect to PAs authorised for human use alone prescribed via the veterinary cascade; this raises important questions regarding the efficacy and safety of PAs prescribed to companion animals. This study explored new approaches for describing PA prescription, diversity and co-prescription in dogs, cats and rabbits utilising electronic health records (EHRs) from a sentinel network of 457 companion animal-treating veterinary sites throughout the UK over a 2-year period (2014-2016). A novel text mining-based identification and classification methodology was utilised to semi-automatically map practitioner-defined product descriptions recorded in 918,333 EHRs from 413,870 dogs encompassing 1,242,270 prescriptions; 352,730 EHRs from 200,541 cats encompassing 491,554 prescriptions, and 22,526 EHRS from 13,398 rabbits encompassing 18,490 prescriptions respectively. PA prescription as a percentage of booked consultations was 65.4% (95% confidence interval, CI, 64.6-66.3) in dogs; in cats it was 69.1% (95% CI, 67.9-70.2) and in rabbits, 56.3% (95% CI, 54.7-57.8). Vaccines were the most commonly prescribed PAs in all three species, with antibiotics, antimycotics, and parasiticides also commonly prescribed. PA prescription utilising products authorised for human use only (hence, 'human-authorised') comprised 5.1% (95% CI, 4.7-5.5) of total canine prescription events; in cats it was 2.8% (95% CI, 2.6-3.0), and in rabbits, 7.8% (95% CI, 6.5-9.0). The most commonly prescribed human-authorised PA in dogs was metronidazole (antibiotic); in cats and rabbits it was ranitidine (H

Indexed as

Data MiningRabbitsAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsCat DiseasesCatsDog DiseasesDogsElectronic Health RecordsPractice Patterns, Physicians'United KingdomAnti-Bacterial AgentsCompanion animalCo-prescriptionPharmacosurveillancePrescriptionSmall animalSurveillance

Identifiers

PMID30314778
PMCPMC6193134
OpenAlexW2890991919

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.