Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34250070›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2021

Evaluation of Antimicrobial Usage in Dogs and Cats at a Veterinary Teaching Hospital in Germany in 2017 and 2018.

Anne Schnepf, Sabine Kramer, Rolf Wagels, Holger A Volk, Lothar Kreienbrock

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Multidrug-ResistantAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Mobile Colistin Resistance (Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  15. 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

5 authors.

Anne SchnepfDepartment of Biometry, Epidemiology and Information Processing, WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training for Health in the Human-Animal-Environment Interface, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Sabine KramerDepartment of Small Animal Medicine and Surgery, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Rolf WagelsInformation and Data Service (TiHo-IDS), University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Holger A VolkDepartment of Small Animal Medicine and Surgery, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Lothar KreienbrockDepartment of Biometry, Epidemiology and Information Processing, WHO Collaborating Centre for Research and Training for Health in the Human-Animal-Environment Interface, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Hannover, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In contrast to food-producing animals, where the documentation of the usage of antimicrobials is regulated by law, antimicrobial usage (AMU) in dogs and cats is only sparsely monitored. We collected data generated by an electronic practice management software (EPMS) between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2018 to investigate AMU. All information was obtained from clinical routine data from the Department of Small Animal Medicine and Surgery (DSAM), University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover (TiHo). In 2017, 78,076 drug administrations were documented for 5,471 dogs and cats, of which 14,020 (17.96%) were antimicrobial drugs (AMs) specifically documented in 2,910 (51.31%) dogs and cats. In 2018, 104,481 drug administrations were documented for 5,939 dogs and cats. Of these drug administrations, 18,170 (17.39%) AM administrations were documented for 3,176 (53.48%) dogs and cats. Despite the increasing documentation of AM administrations, differences between 2017 and 2018 were not statistically significant [odds ratio (OR), 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.98-1.03]. Prescription diversity (PD) in 2017 for dogs was 0.92 and for cats 0.89. In 2018, PD for dogs was 0.93 and for cats 0.88. As well as the documented number of AM administrations, the documented amount of active ingredients administered in 2018 (total: 17.06 kg; dogs: 16.11 kg, cats: 0.96 kg) increased compared with 2017 (total: 15.60 kg; dogs: 14.80 kg, cats: 0.80 kg). In 2017 and 2018, the most commonly administered antimicrobial groups were penicillins, nitroimidazoles, and quinolones for dogs and cats, respectively. While the in-house point-of-care administration accounts for the largest share of the documented amount of AMs administered, the highest number of documented AM administrations was assigned to inpatient care in 2017 and 2018, respectively. However, AM administration in outpatient care remained the lowest in both years. Since no statistically significant difference in AM administrations was observed between 2017 and 2018 and the most commonly used AMs at the DSAM were ranked, data can be used as a baseline to evaluate how changes in in-house guidelines and future legal requirements affect the prescribing culture. Data generated within the DSAM should be evaluated annually.

Indexed as

antimicrobial consumptioncompanion animalelectronic practice management softwareindividual animalpets

Identifiers

PMID34250070
PMCPMC8260837

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.