Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33195550›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2020

Veterinary Diagnostic Practice and the Use of Rapid Tests in Antimicrobial Stewardship on UK Livestock Farms.

Henry Buller, Katie Adam, Alison Bard, Ann Bruce, Kin Wing Ray Chan, Stephen Hinchliffe, Lisa Morgans, Gwen Rees, Kristen K Reyher

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 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Animal research, ethical boundary-work, and the geographies of veterinary expertise.Transactions (Institute of British Geographers : 1965) · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Henry BullerGeography Department, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Katie AdamINNOGEN Institute, Science, Technology and Innovation Studies, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Alison BardSchool of Veterinary Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Ann BruceINNOGEN Institute, Science, Technology and Innovation Studies, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Kin Wing Ray ChanGeography Department, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Stephen HinchliffeGeography Department, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Lisa MorgansSchool of Veterinary Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Gwen ReesSchool of Veterinary Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Kristen K ReyherSchool of Veterinary Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
University of Bristol · GBUniversity of Exeter · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this paper we consider the shifting role, practice and context of veterinary diagnosis in addressing concerns over what is, in the context of the growing threat of antimicrobial resistance, considered unnecessary or excessive antimicrobial medicine use in UK livestock farms. With increasing policy and regulatory interest in diagnostic practices and technologies, coupled with an expanding focus on the development and deployment of new rapid and point-of-care on-farm diagnostic testing, this paper investigates current diagnostic practices amongst veterinarians working on dairy, pig and poultry farms in Great Britain (England, Wales, and Scotland) and, more specifically, veterinarians' use and perceptions of new and emerging rapid and point-of-care diagnostic tests. Drawing on a series of 30 semi-structured interviews with farm animal veterinary professionals across the three sectors, this paper examines the manner in which such tests are both used and anticipated in clinical farm animal veterinary practice and the possible impact rapid test technologies might have on broader farm animal health management and disease control. Analysis of the transcribed interviews reveals a number of complexities around the use of rapid and point-of-care diagnostic tests. The relative rapidity and simplification of such tests, facilitating immediate treatment responses, is held in balance against both the accuracy and the more detailed and documented procedures of established laboratory testing routes. In situations of multifaceted on-farm etiologies, respondents maintained that rapid tests may offer restricted diagnostic capabilities, though in other situations they were found to offer ready confirmation of disease presence. A third complexity arising from the growth of rapid and point-of-care testing and revealed in this study relates to the shifting distribution of responsibilities in animal health care within contemporary food chains. The growing availability of rapid and point-of-care tests effectively diversifies the range of diagnostic actors with consequences for the flow of diagnostic and disease information. The veterinarians in this study identified areas where new rapid and point-of-care tests would be of particular value to them in their clinical practice particularly in addressing concerns over inappropriate antimicrobial use in animal treatment. However, despite the considerable policy advocacy on rapid and point-of-care tests as key tools in shifting diagnostic practice and reducing unnecessary antimicrobial use, veterinarians in this study, while recognizing the potential future role of such tools and technologies, nonetheless viewed diagnostic practice as a far more complex process for which rapid tests might constitute only a part.

Indexed as

antimicrobial usediagnostic practicelivestock farmsrapid diagnostic testsveterinarians

Identifiers

PMID33195550
PMCPMC7593326
OpenAlexW3093207106

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.