Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33195490›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in veterinary science2020

Monitoring of Farm-Level Antimicrobial Use to Guide Stewardship: Overview of Existing Systems and Analysis of Key Components and Processes.

Pim Sanders, Wannes Vanderhaeghen, Mette Fertner, Klemens Fuchs, Walter Obritzhauser, Agnes Agunos, Carolee Carson, Birgitte Borck Høg, Vibe Dalhoff Andersen, Claire Chauvin and 19 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 80 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

80 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase-ProducingAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review

20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

29 authors.

Pim SandersThe Netherlands Veterinary Medicines Institute (SDa), Utrecht, Netherlands.
Wannes VanderhaeghenCentre of Expertise on Antimicrobial Consumption and Resistance in Animals (AMCRA), Brussels, Belgium.
Mette FertnerDepartment of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, Denmark.
Klemens FuchsDepartment for Data, Statistics and Risk Assessment, Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety, Vienna, Austria.
Walter ObritzhauserUnit of Veterinary Public Health and Epidemiology, Institute of Food Safety, Food Technology and Veterinary Public Health, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria.
Agnes AgunosPublic Health Agency of Canada, Guelph, ON, Canada.
Carolee CarsonPublic Health Agency of Canada, Guelph, ON, Canada.
Birgitte Borck HøgDivision for Risk Assessment and Nutrition, National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark.
Vibe Dalhoff AndersenResearch Group for Genomic Epidemiology, National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark.
Claire ChauvinEpidemiology, Health and Welfare Unit, French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety, Ploufragan, France.
Anne HémonicIFIP-Institut du Porc, Domaine de la Motte au Vicomte, Le Rheu, France.
Annemarie KäsbohrerUnit of Veterinary Public Health and Epidemiology, Institute of Food Safety, Food Technology and Veterinary Public Health, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria.
Roswitha MerleInstitute for Veterinary Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Giovanni L AlboraliIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e Dell'Emilia Romagna, Brescia, Italy.
Federico ScaliIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale della Lombardia e Dell'Emilia Romagna, Brescia, Italy.
Katharina D C StärkSAFOSO AG, Bern, Switzerland.
Cedric MuentenerInstitute of Veterinary Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Ingeborg van GeijlswijkThe Netherlands Veterinary Medicines Institute (SDa), Utrecht, Netherlands.
Fraser BroadfootVeterinary Medicines Directorate, Addlestone, United Kingdom.
Lucie PokludováInstitute for State Control of Veterinary Biologicals and Medicines, Brno, Czechia.
Clair L FirthUnit of Veterinary Public Health and Epidemiology, Institute of Food Safety, Food Technology and Veterinary Public Health, University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna, Austria.
Luís P CarmoVetsuisse Faculty, Veterinary Public Health Institute, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Edgar Garcia ManzanillaMoorepark Animal and Grassland Research Center, Teagasc, Irish Agriculture and Food Development Authority, Cork, Ireland.
Laura JensenDanish Veterinary and Food Administration, Glostrup, Denmark.
Marie SjölundDepartment of Animal Health and Antimicrobial Strategies, National Veterinary Institute, Uppsala, Sweden.
Jorge Pinto FerreiraSAFOSO AG, Bern, Switzerland.
Stacey BrownVeterinary Medicines Directorate, Addlestone, United Kingdom.
Dick HeederikThe Netherlands Veterinary Medicines Institute (SDa), Utrecht, Netherlands.
Jeroen DewulfVeterinary Epidemiology Unit, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The acknowledgment of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) as a major health challenge in humans, animals and plants, has led to increased efforts to reduce antimicrobial use (AMU). To better understand factors influencing AMR and implement and evaluate stewardship measures for reducing AMU, it is important to have sufficiently detailed information on the quantity of AMU, preferably at the level of the user (farmer, veterinarian) and/or prescriber or provider (veterinarian, feed mill). Recently, several countries have established or are developing systems for monitoring AMU in animals. The aim of this publication is to provide an overview of known systems for monitoring AMU at farm-level, with a descriptive analysis of their key components and processes. As of March 2020, 38 active farm-level AMU monitoring systems from 16 countries were identified. These systems differ in many ways, including which data are collected, the type of analyses conducted and their respective output. At the same time, they share key components (data collection, analysis, benchmarking, and reporting), resulting in similar challenges to be faced with similar decisions to be made. Suggestions are provided with respect to the different components and important aspects of various data types and methods are discussed. This overview should provide support for establishing or working with such a system and could lead to a better implementation of stewardship actions and a more uniform communication about and understanding of AMU data at farm-level. Harmonization of methods and processes could lead to an improved comparability of outcomes and less confusion when interpreting results across systems. However, it is important to note that the development of systems also depends on specific local needs, resources and aims.

Indexed as

antimicrobial resistanceantimicrobial stewardshipantimicrobial usebenchmarkingindicatorlivestockmonitoringoverview

Identifiers

PMID33195490
PMCPMC7475698

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.