Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34941994›Full record

ReviewThe Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy2022

Comparison of different biomass methodologies to adjust sales data on veterinary antimicrobials in the USA.

Ece Bulut, Renata Ivanek

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The future of antibiotic use in livestock.Nature communications · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

2 authors.

Ece BulutDepartment of Population Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4905-5198
Renata IvanekDepartment of Population Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6348-4709

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe United States (US) FDA, European Surveillance of Veterinary Antimicrobial Consumption (ESVAC), Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) and World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) established methodologies that characterize antimicrobial sales for use in food animals by adjusting the sales by animal biomass. Our aim was to review and compare these methodologies on US-specific data.

methodsAnnual antimicrobial sales for cattle, swine, chickens and turkeys in the USA between 2016 and 2018 were adjusted by the FDA, ESVAC, PHAC and OIE methodologies. To better understand the advantages and disadvantages of the four methodologies, their biomass denominators were compared regarding the level of detail accounted for in the estimated US livestock biomass, their ability to observe temporal trends in animal biomass within a country and practicality in biomass estimation for comparing antimicrobial sales across countries.

resultsThe four methodologies resulted in substantially different estimates of biomass-adjusted antimicrobial sales for use in US food animals. The 2018 estimates were the highest with the ESVAC methodology (314.7 mg of active antimicrobial ingredient/kg of animal biomass), followed by PHAC (191.5 mg/kg), FDA (127.6 mg/kg) and OIE (111.5 mg/kg). The animal weight parameters used in each methodology had the most impact on the biomass-adjusted sales estimates.

conclusionsIn regard to the estimation of the animal biomass, no methodology was found to be perfect; however, the FDA methodology had the best resolution in characterizing the US livestock biomass while the OIE methodology was best for biomass estimation for global monitoring of antimicrobial sales for use in food animals.

Indexed as

Anti-Infective AgentsDrug UtilizationAnimalsBiomassCattleChickensCommerceSwineUnited StatesAnti-Infective Agents

Identifiers

PMID34941994
PMCPMC8865012

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.