Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31543995›Full record

SynthesisBMJ global health2019

Comparison of different approaches to antibiotic restriction in food-producing animals: stratified results from a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Karen L Tang, Niamh P Caffrey, Diego B Nóbrega, Susan C Cork, Paul E Ronksley, Herman W Barkema, Alicia J Polachek, Heather Ganshorn, Nishan Sharma, James D Kellner and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ global health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Exposure and health risks of livestock air resistomes.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Extended-spectrumFrontiers in microbiology · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Antibiotic resistance spectrums ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  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

12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Karen L TangDepartment of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Niamh P CaffreyDepartment of Ecosystem and Public Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Diego B NóbregaDepartment of Production Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Susan C CorkDepartment of Ecosystem and Public Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Paul E RonksleyDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Herman W BarkemaDepartment of Production Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Alicia J PolachekW21C Research and Innovation Centre, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Heather GanshornLibraries and Cultural Resources, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Nishan SharmaW21C Research and Innovation Centre, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
James D KellnerDepartment of Pediatrics, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Sylvia L CheckleyDepartment of Ecosystem and Public Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
William A GhaliDepartment of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
University of Calgary · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe have previously reported, in a systematic review of 181 studies, that restriction of antibiotic use in food-producing animals is associated with a reduction in antibiotic-resistant bacterial isolates. While informative, that report did not concretely specify whether different types of restriction are associated with differential effectiveness in reducing resistance. We undertook a sub-analysis of the systematic review to address this question.

methodsWe created a classification scheme of different approaches to antibiotic restriction: (1) complete restriction; (2) single antibiotic-class restriction; (3) single antibiotic restriction; (4) all non-therapeutic use restriction; (5) growth promoter and prophylaxis restriction; (6) growth promoter restriction and (7) other/undetermined. All studies in the original systematic review that were amenable to meta-analysis were included into this substudy and coded by intervention type. Meta-analyses were conducted using random effects models, stratified by intervention type.

resultsA total of 127 studies were included. The most frequently studied intervention type was complete restriction (n=51), followed by restriction of non-therapeutic (n=33) and growth promoter (n=19) indications. None examined growth promoter and prophylaxis restrictions together. Three and seven studies examined single antibiotic-class and single antibiotic restrictions, respectively; these two intervention types were not significantly associated with reductions in antibiotic resistance. Though complete restrictions were associated with a 15% reduction in antibiotic resistance, less prohibitive approaches also demonstrated reduction in antibiotic resistance of 9%-30%.

conclusionBroad interventions that restrict global antibiotic use appear to be more effective in reducing antibiotic resistance compared with restrictions that narrowly target one specific antibiotic or antibiotic class. Importantly, interventions that allow for therapeutic antibiotic use appear similarly effective compared with those that restrict all uses of antibiotics, suggesting that complete bans are not necessary. These findings directly inform the creation of specific policies to restrict antibiotic use in food-producing animals.

Indexed as

public healthsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID31543995
PMCPMC6730577
OpenAlexW2970208418

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.