Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32878274›Full record

ArticleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2020

Stability, Homogeneity and Carry-Over of Amoxicillin, Doxycycline, Florfenicol and Flubendazole in Medicated Feed and Drinking Water on 24 Pig Farms.

Femke Vandael, Helena Cardoso de Carvalho Ferreira, Mathias Devreese, Jeroen Dewulf, Els Daeseleire, Mia Eeckhout, Siska Croubels

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 54% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Femke VandaelLaboratory of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Biochemistry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium.
Helena Cardoso de Carvalho FerreiraDepartment of Reproduction, Obstetrics and Herd Health, Veterinary Epidemiology Unit, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium.
Mathias DevreeseLaboratory of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Biochemistry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-2512-4176
Jeroen DewulfDepartment of Reproduction, Obstetrics and Herd Health, Veterinary Epidemiology Unit, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-9843-5990
Els DaeseleireResearch Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO), Technology and Food Science Unit (T&V), 9090 Melle, Belgium.
Mia EeckhoutDepartment of Food Technology, Food Safety and Health, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.
Siska CroubelsLaboratory of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Biochemistry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-6357-3517
Ghent University · BE

Funding

FOD Volksgezondheid, Veiligheid van de Voedselketen en Leefmilieu GROUPMEDIPIG, RF16/6303
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The vast majority of medicines in pig rearing are administered via oral group medication through medicated feed and drinking water. However, relevant on-farm factors affecting the concentration of these drugs in feed and drinking water, such as the homogeneity, stability, and cross-contamination, are largely unknown. To characterize these factors, samples of medicated feed and drinking water were taken on 24 Belgian pig farms during treatment and 2 days thereafter, as well as at different on-farm sampling sites from production to feeding troughs or drinking nipples. The samples contained amoxicillin, doxycycline, florfenicol, or flubendazole. Additionally, a questionnaire was completed. In contrast to the results of medicated feed, results of medicated water showed a large between-farm variation in antimicrobial drug concentration. The therapeutic concentration range was only met in 2 out of 11 farms using medicated feed, and in 3 out of 13 farms using medicated water. Medicated feed concentrations were often below the therapeutic concentration range mentioned in the Summary of Product Characteristics, while drinking water concentrations were just as often above as they were below the advised target concentration range. Drug residues measured 2 days after the end of therapy with both feed and water medication rarely exceeded 1% of the lowest therapeutic concentration. This study demonstrates that recommendations on good clinical practices for oral group medication in the pig industry are highly needed.

Indexed as

homogeneitymedicated drinking watermedicated feedoral group medicationpig productionresiduesstabilityveterinary drugs

Identifiers

PMID32878274
PMCPMC7559249
OpenAlexW3082407633

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.