ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2023
Antimicrobial use in 20 U.S. beef feedyards: 2018-2019.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Beef Cattle Farmers' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Toward On-Farm Biosecurity, Antimicrobial Use, and Antimicrobial Resistance in Illinois, United States of America.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Quantifying trade-offs between therapeutic efficacy and resistance dissemination for enrofloxacin dose regimens in cattle.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Quantifying trade-offs between therapeutic efficacy and resistance dissemination for enrofloxacin dose regimens in cattle.Research square · 2024Article
- Antimicrobial Metaphylaxis and its Impact on Health, Performance, Antimicrobial Resistance, and Contextual Antimicrobial Use in High-Risk Beef Stocker Calves.Journal of animal science · 2024Article
- A mixed method approach to analysing patterns and drivers of antibiotic use and resistance in beef farms in Argentina.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
- Effect of Antimicrobial Use in Conventional Versus Natural Cattle Feedlots on the Microbiome and Resistome.Microorganisms · 2023Article
- The association of multiple metrics for evaluating antimicrobial use in U.S. beef feedyards.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The objective of this study was to report antimicrobial use in a convenience sample of U.S. beef feedyards for the years 2018 and 2019. In addition to antimicrobial use metrics, also reported are the indications for antimicrobial use and outcomes related to these indications. Antimicrobial use is characterized at the study and feedyard levels for a total of 1,141,846 head of cattle in 20 U.S. feedyards. Antimicrobial use is reported as milligrams of active antimicrobial ingredient per kilogram of liveweight sold (mg/kg-LW) and regimens of antimicrobials per animal year (Reg/AY). Regimens are described by antimicrobial class within use category as characterized by mg of active antimicrobial product per regimen (mg/Reg) and calendar days of administration per regimen (CDoA/Reg). A total of 1,128,515 regimens of medically important antimicrobials were captured from records. The number of regimens/100 head-in (Reg/100 head-in) are described in a subset of 10 feedyards with adequate data granularity to directly determine indications for antimicrobial administration. For the indications of bovine respiratory disease (BRD), Lameness (Lame), Liver Abscess Control (LAC), and Other (e.g., central nervous system disease, cellulitis) the Reg/100 head-in study-level values are 37.1, 0.8, 98.4, and 0.7, respectively, for 2018, with similar values for 2019. The regimens for BRD are further categorized in these 10 feedyards by the use categories in-feed, control of BRD, and individual animal therapy, yielding study level values of 4.6, 19.6, and 12.9 Reg/100 head-in, respectively, for 2018, with similar values for 2019. Outcomes of therapy for individual animal treatment of BRD, Lame, and Other are reported as treatment success, retreatment, or mortality by 30 days after the initial therapy of an animal for a disease. Treatment success rates (no treatment or mortality in the next 30 days) for 2018 in the 10 feedyards with sufficient data granularity are 76.5, 86.5, and 83.0% for BRD, Lame, and Other, respectively. The comparison of these results with other reports of antimicrobial use in North American feedyards highlights how differing approaches in calculating metric values may result in substantially different conclusions regarding antimicrobial use, especially in relation to long-duration uses.
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.