Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31221155›Full record

ArticleBMC veterinary research2019

Assessing antimicrobial misuse in small-scale chicken farms in Vietnam from an observational study.

Marc Choisy, Nguyen Van Cuong, Truong Dinh Bao, Bach Tuan Kiet, Bo Ve Hien, Ho Viet Thu, Niwat Chansiripornchai, Erry Setyawan, Guy Thwaites, Jonathan Rushton and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study, Veterinary
In one paragraph

Article in BMC veterinary research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Restrictions on antimicrobial use in aquaculture and livestock, Viet Nam.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

11 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

Marc ChoisyOxford University Clinical Research Unit, Hanoi, Vietnam. marc.choisy@ird.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5187-6390
Nguyen Van CuongOxford University Clinical Research Unit, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Truong Dinh BaoOxford University Clinical Research Unit, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Bach Tuan KietSub-Department of Animal Health and Production (SDAHP), Cao Lanh, Dong Thap, Vietnam.
Bo Ve HienSub-Department of Animal Health and Production (SDAHP), Cao Lanh, Dong Thap, Vietnam.
Ho Viet ThuUniversity of Can Tho, Can Tho, Vietnam.
Niwat ChansiripornchaiAvian Health Research Unit, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Erry SetyawanFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Guy ThwaitesOxford University Clinical Research Unit, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Jonathan RushtonInstitute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Juan Carrique-MasOxford University Clinical Research Unit, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Oxford University Clinical Research Unit · VNUniversity of Oxford · GBCan Tho University · VNCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRChulalongkorn University · THUniversity of Liverpool · GB

Funding

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

Abstract

backgroundAntimicrobials are used by poultry farmers in Vietnam as a tool to treat and prevent infectious diseases. We aimed to determine the fraction of disease episodes likely to remain untreated due to the administration of antimicrobials on non-susceptible pathogens in chicken flocks in the Mekong Delta of Vietnam. Weekly data on antimicrobial use and clinical signs were collected from 88 randomly chosen chicken flocks over 124 full production cycles (i.e. time between restocking flocks with day-old chicks and sale for slaughter). A naïve Bayes model was trained to infer the probabilities of disease episodes having been caused by each of 24 pathogens, given the observed clinical sign profile, and expert knowledge on their relative incidence.

resultsA total of 224 disease episodes were observed, of which 44.8% were attributed to viruses (95% CI 31.1-58.4%), 54.6% (CI 40.4-68.7%) to bacteria, and 0.6% (CI 0-1.7%) to a protozoan (Eimeria spp.). Antimicrobials were more frequently administered on weeks with disease than on weeks without disease (43.3% vs. 17.8%; p < 0.001). A median of 2 [IQR 0-4] antimicrobials were used by episode. The choice of specific antimicrobials was independent on whether the flocks had disease clinical signs or not. Antimicrobials were not used in 30.3% of the episodes. The overall probability that episodes were not effectively treated was 74.2, and 53.7% when discounting cases where the inferred aetiology is viral. Considering only episodes where antimicrobials were given, these probabilities were 57.4 and 23.8% respectively.

conclusionsThis study highlights untargeted use of antimicrobials on small-scale Vietnamese chicken farms, as well as the limitations of antimicrobials as effective tools to control infectious diseases.

Indexed as

ChickensDrug MisuseAnimalsAnti-Infective AgentsBayes TheoremDrug Resistance, MicrobialPoultry DiseasesVietnamAnti-Infective AgentsAntimicrobial usageChicken farmLow- and middle-income countrynaïve Bayes model

Identifiers

PMID31221155
PMCPMC6585117
OpenAlexW2952956600

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.