Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32083099›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2020

Assignment of Canadian Defined Daily Doses and Canadian Defined Course Doses for Quantification of Antimicrobial Usage in Cattle.

Hélène Lardé, Simon Dufour, Marie Archambault, David Léger, Daleen Loest, Jean-Philippe Roy, David Francoz

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hélène LardéDepartment of Pathology and Microbiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Université de Montréal, Saint-Hyacinthe, QC, Canada.
Simon DufourDepartment of Pathology and Microbiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Université de Montréal, Saint-Hyacinthe, QC, Canada.
Marie ArchambaultDepartment of Pathology and Microbiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Université de Montréal, Saint-Hyacinthe, QC, Canada.
David LégerCentre for Food-borne, Environmental and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Public Health Agency of Canada, Guelph, ON, Canada.
Daleen LoestCentre for Food-borne, Environmental and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Public Health Agency of Canada, Guelph, ON, Canada.
Jean-Philippe RoyFonds de Recherche du Québec - Nature et Technologies Strategic Cluster Op+lait, Regroupement de Recherche Pour un Lait de Qualité Optimale, Saint-Hyacinthe, QC, Canada.
David FrancozFonds de Recherche du Québec - Nature et Technologies Strategic Cluster Op+lait, Regroupement de Recherche Pour un Lait de Qualité Optimale, Saint-Hyacinthe, QC, Canada.
Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé · CAPublic Health Agency of Canada · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Standardized units are essential to allow quantification and comparison of antimicrobial usage (AMU) between species and regions. In Canada, defined daily and course doses have not yet been harmonized for cattle. Our objective was to assign defined daily and course doses (named DDDbovCA and DCDbovCA, respectively) for cattle in Canada, by antimicrobial agent (AM) and by route of administration, based on the label of all products containing at least one AM, marketed and authorized in Canada for use in cattle. In April and December 2019, a systematic search was performed from the online Drug Product Database (DPD) of Health Canada to identify veterinary products containing at least one AM, marketed in Canada for use in cattle. Products were divided by route of administration (intramammary, intrauterine, injectable, oral, and topical). The monograph was retrieved for each product from the DPD, or from the Canadian Edition of the Compendium of Veterinary Products (CVP), and read completely to extract recommended dosages in cattle. Standard weights were applied to compute doses if required. DDDbovCA and DCDbovCA were assigned by calculating an average of daily and course doses, respectively, by AM and route of administration. Two products were excluded from calculations because of their claim as growth promotion or feed efficiency (no longer authorized in Canada for certain categories of AM). Overall, 39 injectable, 75 oral (including 23 medicated premixes), 8 intramammary (4 for lactating cows and 4 for dry cows), 5 intrauterine, and 4 topical products were used for calculations. DDDbovCA and DCDbovCA values were assigned successfully for each AM identified, by route of administration. These metrics will allow harmonized and transparent quantification of AMU in cattle in Canada.

Indexed as

animal infectionantibiotic usageantimicrobial usagecattleDCDbovCADDDbovCAmetricsquantification

Identifiers

PMID32083099
PMCPMC7001643
OpenAlexW3003809040

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.