Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33707426›Full record

ArticleNature communications2021

A randomised controlled trial to reduce highest priority critically important antimicrobial prescription in companion animals.

David A Singleton, Angela Rayner, Bethaney Brant, Steven Smyth, Peter-John M Noble, Alan D Radford, Gina L Pinchbeck

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial, Veterinary
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
5.1field-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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Enrofloxacin-associated ocular disease in cats: A scoping review.The Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne · 2025
    Article
  11. Antimicrobial use in animals: When more might be better.The Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

David A SingletonInstitute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Chester High Road, Neston, UK. D.A.Singleton@liverpool.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1980-5410
Angela RaynerCVS (UK) Limited, 1 Owen Road, Diss, UK.
Bethaney BrantInstitute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Chester High Road, Neston, UK.
Steven SmythInstitute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Chester High Road, Neston, UK.
Peter-John M NobleInstitute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Chester High Road, Neston, UK.
Alan D RadfordInstitute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Chester High Road, Neston, UK.
Gina L PinchbeckInstitute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, Chester High Road, Neston, UK.
University of Liverpool · GBUniversities UK · GB

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/N019547/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Robust evidence supporting strategies for companion animal antimicrobial stewardship is limited, despite frequent prescription of highest priority critically important antimicrobials (HPCIA). Here we describe a randomised controlled trial where electronic prescription data were utilised (August 2018-January 2019) to identify above average HPCIA-prescribing practices (n = 60), which were randomly assigned into a control group (CG) and two intervention groups. In March 2019, the light intervention group (LIG) and heavy intervention group (HIG) were notified of their above average status, and were provided with educational material (LIG, HIG), in-depth benchmarking (HIG), and follow-up meetings (HIG). Following notification, follow-up monitoring lasted for eight months (April-November 2019; post-intervention period) for all intervention groups, though HIG practices were able to access further support (i.e., follow-up meetings) for the first six of these months if requested. Post-intervention, in the HIG a 23.5% and 39.0% reduction in canine (0.5% of total consultations, 95% confidence interval, 0.4-0.6, P = 0.04) and feline (4.4%, 3.4-5.3, P < 0.001) HPCIA-prescribing consultations was observed, compared to the CG (dogs: 0.6%, 0.5-0.8; cats: 7.4%, 6.0-8.7). The LIG was associated with a 16.7% reduction in feline HPCIA prescription (6.1% of total consultations, 5.3-7.0, P = 0.03). Therefore, in this trial we have demonstrated effective strategies for reducing veterinary HPCIA prescription.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsAntimicrobial StewardshipPractice Patterns, Physicians'Veterinary DrugsAnimalsCatsDogsDrug Resistance, BacterialElectronic Health RecordsElectronic PrescribingFemaleMalePetsAnti-Bacterial AgentsVeterinary Drugs

Identifiers

PMID33707426
PMCPMC7952375
OpenAlexW3133980288

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.