ArticleMicroorganisms2021
Comparison of Quantification Methods to Estimate Farm-Level Usage of Antimicrobials Other than in Medicated Feed in Dairy Farms from Québec, Canada.
Article in Microorganisms, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The objective of the study was to compare three quantification methods to a "garbage can audit" (reference method, REF) for monitoring antimicrobial usage (AMU) from products other than medicated feed over one year in 101 Québec dairy farms. Data were collected from veterinary invoices (VET method), from the "Amélioration de la Santé Animale au Québec" provincial program (GOV method), and from farm treatment records (FARM method). The AMU rate was reported in a number of Canadian Defined Course Doses for cattle (DCDbovCA) per 100 cow-years. Electronic veterinary sales data were obtained for all farms for VET and GOV methods. For the FARM method, a herd management software was used by 68% of producers whereas farm treatment records were handwritten for the others; records could not be retrieved in 4% of farms. Overall, agreement was almost perfect between REF and VET methods (concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) = 0.83), but moderate between REF and GOV (CCC = 0.44), and between REF and FARM (CCC = 0.51). Only a fair or slight agreement was obtained between any alternative method of quantification and REF for oral and intrauterine routes. The billing software used by most of Québec's dairy veterinary practitioners seems promising in terms of surveillance and benchmarking of AMU in the province.
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.