ArticleVeterinary record open2020
Impact of the Suissano Health Programme on antimicrobial usage on 291 pig farms in Switzerland.
Article in Veterinary record open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trends in Antimicrobial Usage on Swiss Pig Farms from 2018 to 2021: Based on an Electronic Treatment Journal.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Lesions and pathogens found in pigs that died during the nursery period in five Danish farms.Porcine health management · 2023Article
- A review of the predictors of antimicrobial use and resistance in European food animal production.Frontiers in antibiotics · 2023Review
- Antimicrobial Usage Among Different Age Categories and Herd Sizes in Swiss Farrow-to-Finish Farms.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 2015, in Switzerland the Suissano Health Programme was implemented in pig production to improve transparency for antimicrobial usage (AMU) and to reduce the usage of fluoroquinolones (FQ), macrolides and cephalosporins, representing highest priority critically important antimicrobials.
methodsIn the presented cohort study, the impact of the Suissano programme on the AMU of 291 pig farms between 2016 and 2017 was investigated. AMU was calculated in total numbers of defined course doses (nDCDch) for all farms in the programme. For each single farm the nDCDch/animal/year was determined for four different age categories (suckling piglets, weaned piglets, fattening pigs, sows) as well as each antimicrobial substance separately. Trends between 2016 and 2017 were investigated for all farms as well as the 25 per cent with the highest usage of antimicrobials (high users) separately.
resultsTotal AMU measured in nDCDch declined by 23 per cent between 2016 and 2017, but statistically significant differences could not be observed when comparing the data sets of the individual farms. A significantly reduced usage of FQ could be demonstrated in suckling piglets (P=0.003), weaned piglets (P=0.006) and sows (P=0.008) in 2017 compared with 2016. For high users, a significant reduction of total AMU could be shown in suckling piglets (P=0.02), weaned piglets (P=0.0004) and fattening pigs (P=0.01).
conclusionThis study demonstrated a significant reduction in the usage of FQs in suckling piglets, weaned piglets and sows as well as total AMU in suckling piglets, weaned piglets and fattening pigs on high-usage farms.
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.