Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36251714›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Antibiotic usage practices and its drivers in commercial chicken production in Bangladesh.

Sukanta Chowdhury, Guillaume Fournié, Damer Blake, Joerg Henning, Patricia Conway, Md Ahasanul Hoque, Sumon Ghosh, Shahana Parveen, Paritosh Kumar Biswas, Zubair Akhtar and 9 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. 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
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Multidrug Resistance and Virulence Gene Profiles ofVeterinary medicine international · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

19 authors at 8 institutions in 5 countries.

Sukanta ChowdhuryInternational Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.ORCID 0000-0003-3053-4241
Guillaume FourniéRoyal Veterinary College, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6998-1201
Damer BlakeRoyal Veterinary College, London, United Kingdom.
Joerg HenningThe University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Patricia ConwayNanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0003-1763-0773
Md Ahasanul HoqueChattogram Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Chittagong, Bangladesh.
Sumon GhoshInternational Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Shahana ParveenInternational Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Paritosh Kumar BiswasChattogram Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Chittagong, Bangladesh.
Zubair AkhtarInternational Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.ORCID 0000-0001-5054-9243
Khaleda IslamFleming Fund Country Grant to Bangladesh, DAI Global, LLC, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Md Ariful IslamInternational Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.ORCID 0000-0002-0734-5832
Md Mahbubur RashidInternational Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Ludvic PelligandRoyal Veterinary College, London, United Kingdom.
Zobaidul Haque KhanFleming Fund Country Grant to Bangladesh, DAI Global, LLC, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Mahmudur RahmanGlobal Health Development, EMPHNET, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Fiona TomleyRoyal Veterinary College, London, United Kingdom.
Nitish DebnathFleming Fund Country Grant to Bangladesh, DAI Global, LLC, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Fahmida ChowdhuryInternational Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research (icddr,b), Dhaka, Bangladesh.
International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research · BDRoyal Veterinary College · GBChattogram Veterinary and Animal Sciences University · BDUNSW Sydney · AUARK Foundation · BDEastern Mediterranean Public Health Network · JONanyang Technological University · SGThe University of Queensland · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Irrational and inappropriate use of antibiotics in commercial chicken production can contribute to the development of antimicrobial resistance. We aimed to assess antibiotic usage in commercial chicken production in Bangladesh, and identify factors associated with this practice. We conducted a large-scale cross-sectional study to collect information on antibiotic usage in commercial chickens from January to May 2021. Structured interviews were conducted with 288 broiler, 288 layer and 192 Sonali (locally-produced cross-bred) farmers in 20 sub-districts across Bangladesh. The frequency of antibiotic usage, the types of antibiotics and purpose of usage were estimated for each production type. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) were calculated to measure the association between antibiotic usage and factors related to the characteristics of the farms and farmers using multivariable logistic regression models. The proportion of farms, irrespective of their production type, reporting usage of antibiotics in the 24 hours preceding the interview was 41% (n = 314, 95% CI: 37-44%). Forty-five percent (n = 344, 41-48%) reported antibiotic usage in the last 72 hours, 86% (n = 658, 83-88%) in the last 14 days, and almost all farms, 98% (n = 753, 97-99%), had used antibiotics since the start of their production cycle. Use of antibiotics in the 24 hours preceding an interview was more frequently reported in broiler (OR 1.91, 95% CI: 1.36-2.69) and Sonali (OR 1.94, 95% CI: 1.33-2.33) than layer farms. Oxytetracycline (23-31%, depending on production type), doxycycline (18-25%), ciprofloxacin (16-26%) and amoxicillin (16-44%) were the most frequently used antibiotics. Antibiotics were reported to be used for both treatment and prophylactic purposes on most farms (57-67%). Usage of antibiotics in the 24h preceding an interview was significantly associated with the occurrence of any illnesses in chickens (aOR broiler: 41.22 [95% CI:13.63-124.62], layer: aOR 36.45[9.52-139.43], Sonali: aOR 28.47[4.97-162.97]). Antibiotic usage was mainly advised by veterinary practitioners (45-71%, depending on production type), followed by feed dealers (21-40%) and farmers (7-13%). Improvement of chicken health through good farming practices along with changes in key stakeholders (feed dealers and practitioners) attitudes towards antibiotic recommendations to farmers, may help to reduce the levels of antibiotic usage and thus contribute to mitigate antimicrobial resistance.

Indexed as

ChickensOxytetracyclineAmoxicillinAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsBangladeshCiprofloxacinCross-Sectional StudiesDoxycyclineAmoxicillinAnti-Bacterial AgentsCiprofloxacinDoxycyclineOxytetracycline

Identifiers

PMID36251714
PMCPMC9576089
OpenAlexW4306632277

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.