Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33280048›Full record

ReviewThe Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy2020

White Paper: Bridging the gap between surveillance data and antimicrobial stewardship in the animal sector-practical guidance from the JPIAMR ARCH and COMBACTE-MAGNET EPI-Net networks.

Monica Compri, Rodolphe Mader, Elena Mazzolini, Giulia de Angelis, Nico T Mutters, Nithya Babu Rajendran, Liliana Galia, Evelina Tacconelli, Remco Schrijver, ARCH working group

Abstract readReviewConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Review in The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

10 authors.

Monica CompriInfectious Diseases Section, Department of Diagnostics and Public Health, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Rodolphe MaderUniversity of Lyon, French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (ANSES), Laboratory of Lyon, Antimicrobial Resistance and Bacterial Virulence Unit, Lyon, France.
Elena MazzoliniDepartment of Epidemiology, Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie, Legnaro, Padua, Italy.
Giulia de AngelisDipartimento di Scienze Biotecnologiche di base, Cliniche Intensivologiche e Perioperatorie, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Nico T MuttersInstitute for Hygiene and Public Health, Bonn University Hospital, Bonn, Germany.
Nithya Babu RajendranInfectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine I, Tübingen University Hospital, Tübingen, Germany.
Liliana GaliaInfectious Diseases Section, Department of Diagnostics and Public Health, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Evelina TacconelliInfectious Diseases Section, Department of Diagnostics and Public Health, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Remco SchrijverVetEffecT, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
ARCH working group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe JPIAMR ARCH and COMBACTE-MAGNET EPI-Net networks have joined efforts to formulate a set of target actions to link the surveillance of antimicrobial usage (AMU) and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) with antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) activities in four different settings. This White Paper focuses on the veterinary setting and embraces the One Health approach.

methodsA review of the literature was carried out addressing research questions in three areas: AMS leadership and accountability; AMU surveillance and AMS; and AMR surveillance and AMS. Consensus on target actions was reached through a RAND-modified Delphi process involving over 40 experts in infectious diseases, clinical microbiology, AMS, veterinary medicine and public health, from 18 countries. RESULTS/DISCUSSION: Forty-six target actions were developed and qualified as essential or desirable. Essential actions included the setup of AMS teams in all veterinary settings, building government-supported AMS programmes and following specific requirements on the production, collection and communication of AMU and AMR data. Activities of AMS teams should be tailored to the local situation and capacities, and be linked to local or national surveillance systems and infection control programmes. Several research priorities were also identified, such as the need to develop more clinical breakpoints in veterinary medicine.

conclusionsThis White Paper offers a practical tool to veterinary practitioners and policy makers to improve AMS in the One Health approach, thanks to surveillance data generated in the veterinary setting. This work may also be useful to medical doctors wishing to better understand the specificities of the veterinary setting and facilitate cross-sectoral collaborations.

Indexed as

Anti-Infective AgentsAntimicrobial StewardshipAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsInfection ControlMagnetsAnti-Bacterial AgentsAnti-Infective Agents

Identifiers

PMID33280048
PMCPMC7719408

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.