ArticleEnvironmental health insights2020
Understanding Antibiotic Residues and Pathogens Flow in Wastewater from Smallholder Pig Farms to Agriculture Field in Ha Nam Province, Vietnam.
Article in Environmental health insights, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- MIC and MBC of silver nanoparticles in antibiotic-resistantOpen veterinary journal · 2026Article
- Pigs, Biomes, and the Pork Peril: A One Health and One Welfare Meta-Narrative.Disease biology, genetics, and socioecology · 2026Article
- A review and meta-analysis of non-typhoidalOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2024Review
- Article
- Antibiotics Use in Food Animal Production: Escalation of Antimicrobial Resistance: Where Are We Now in Combating AMR?Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundContact with livestock wastewater on farms and in communities can pose a risk to human and animal health.
methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted in 180 households and 24 pig farms (96 wastewater samples) to explore information about pig production, livestock waste management, antibiotic use, and to analyze antibiotic residues and microbial contamination, respectively.
resultsOf the 120 households raising pigs, biogas systems were the most commonly used to treat animal waste (70%), followed by compositing (19%), and the remaining respondents discharged waste directly into drains or ponds (11%). The majority of respondents (78%) used antibiotics to treat and prevent disease in pigs, but 32% of them did not know of any disadvantages of antibiotic abuse. ELISA assays were performed on half of the wastewater samples (n = 48), demonstrating that residues of flouroquinolones and sulfonamides were present in 6.3% (3/48) and 22.9% (11/48) of tested samples, respectively. The average residual level of sulfamethazine was 27.8 ug/l. Further,
conclusionsThis study suggests that livestock wastewater carried potential harmful pathogens and antibiotic residues that could come into contact with humans in the community. Thus, appropriate operation and application of livestock wastewater treatment (such as biogas or composting) and management should be a continued focused.
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.