ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2019
Calculation of Antimicrobial Use Indicators in Beef Feedlots-Effects of Choice of Metric and Standardized Values.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantification and trends of antimicrobial use in commercial adult dairy and calves during summer and winter in Pakistan.Open veterinary journal · 2025Article
- Comparison of Antibiotic Use and the Frequency of Diseases Depending on the Size of Herd and the Type of Cattle Breeding.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Antimicrobial Metaphylaxis and its Impact on Health, Performance, Antimicrobial Resistance, and Contextual Antimicrobial Use in High-Risk Beef Stocker Calves.Journal of animal science · 2024Article
- Contagious acquisition of antimicrobial resistance is critical for explaining emergence in western Canadian feedlots-insights from an agent-based modelling tool.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
- Comparison of multiple international metrics for benchmarking antibiotic usage (ABU) using UK beef and sheep data.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2023Article
- Artificial Intelligence and Sensor Technologies in Dairy Livestock Export: Charting a Digital Transformation.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Monitoring of antimicrobial usage among adult bovines in dairy herds of Punjab, India: A quantitative analysis of pattern and frequency.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2023Article
- Standardization and evaluation of indicators for quantifying antimicrobial use on U.S. dairy farms.Frontiers in antibiotics · 2023Article
- Antimicrobial use in 20 U.S. beef feedyards: 2018-2019.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2023Article
- Genome-Wide Association Study of Nucleotide Variants Associated with Resistance to Nine Antimicrobials inMicroorganisms · 2022Article
- Comparison of different biomass methodologies to adjust sales data on veterinary antimicrobials in the USA.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2022Review
- Method to Assess Farm-Level Vaccine and Antibiotic Usage Utilizing Financial Documentation: A Pilot Study in a Commercial Pig Farm in South Africa From 2016 to 2018.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2022Article
- The association of multiple metrics for evaluating antimicrobial use in U.S. beef feedyards.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2022Article
- Comparison of different antimicrobial use indicators and antimicrobial resistance data in food-producing animals.JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2021Article
- A Retrospective, Observational Study on Antimicrobial Drug Use in Beef Fattening Operations in Northwestern Italy and Evaluation of Risk Factors Associated with Increased Antimicrobial Usage.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Article
- Antimicrobial Use Surveillance Indicators for Finfish Aquaculture Production: A Review.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2021Review
- Antimicrobial Sensitivity Testing ofMicroorganisms · 2020Article
- Feedlot Cattle Antimicrobial Use Surveillance Network: A Canadian Journey.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2020Review
- Does the Use of Different Indicators to Benchmark Antimicrobial Use Affect Farm Ranking?Frontiers in veterinary science · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The potential for antimicrobial use (AMU) to lead to the development of antimicrobial resistant bacteria is an increasingly important priority in human and veterinary medicine. Accurate AMU quantification is essential to assessing the risk of antimicrobial resistance due to AMU. The quantification of AMU in production animals can be difficult, and feedlot beef cattle present a number of unique challenges. This paper presents selected parenteral data from western Canadian beef feedlots to illustrate variations in interpretation of AMU that can arise from the use of different metrics and standards. Specific examples presented compare the number of animal daily doses calculated from a given amount of antimicrobial drug (AMD) using actual and estimated weights of cattle at exposure, dose-based to weight-based indicators representing the same amount of antimicrobial, dose-based AMU indicators using different estimated durations of effect (DOE), and AMU indicators calculated using different standard weights of cattle at exposure. Changing these factors when calculating AMU indicators can have notable influences on the results obtained. Transparency about the methods used to calculate AMU indicators is critical to ensure that comparisons of use among different populations is meaningful and accurate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.