Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37053211›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Quantifying topical antimicrobial use before and during participation in an antimicrobial stewardship programme in Dutch companion animal clinics.

Nafsika Kardomatea, Nonke E M Hopman, Ingeborg M van Geijlswijk, Lützen Portengen, Jaap A Wagenaar, Dick J J Heederik, Els M Broens

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nafsika KardomateaDepartment of Biomolecular Health Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Nonke E M HopmanDepartment of Biomolecular Health Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Ingeborg M van GeijlswijkDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Lützen PortengenDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Jaap A WagenaarDepartment of Biomolecular Health Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Dick J J HeederikDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Els M BroensDepartment of Biomolecular Health Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1312-6115
Utrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The emergence of bacterial strains resistant to topical antimicrobials in both human and veterinary medicine has raised concerns over retaining the efficacy of these preparations. Yet, little information is available regarding the use of topical antimicrobials in either sector for planning targeted interventions. This study aims to quantify the use of topical antimicrobials in 44 Dutch companion animal clinics before and during their participation in an antimicrobial stewardship programme (ASP), to explore the effect of the intervention on topical antimicrobial use (AMU). Hence, prescription and clinic animal population data, collected from July 2012 until June 2018 were used. Specifically, the period from July 2012 until June 2015 was defined as pre-intervention period, whereas clinics started to participate in the ASP from March 2016 onwards. As quantification metric, the Defined Daily Dose for Animals (DDDA) was used and a mixed effect times series model with auto-regression was applied to monthly topical AMU data. The intervention effect was modelled using a step function with a change in (linear) time trend and clinic characteristics, as potential determinants of topical AMU, were assessed using a multivariable regression model. A seasonal pattern was identified, in the pre-intervention period, where topical AMU was highest in July-August and lowest in February-March. In addition, total topical AMU appeared to significantly decrease over time in the pre-intervention period and the proportion of dogs in the clinic was positively associated with topical AMU. The intervention effect was significant only for second line and for skin product AMU. This study demonstrates that during participation in an ASP, second line and skin product AMU decreased in Dutch companion animal clinics. Additionally, this study demonstrates the existence of a seasonal effect and a decrease in topical AMU over time already before introduction of a targeted intervention.

Indexed as

Anti-Infective AgentsAnti-Infective Agents, LocalAntimicrobial StewardshipAnimalsDogsHumansPetsPrescriptionsAnti-Infective AgentsAnti-Infective Agents, Local

Identifiers

PMID37053211
PMCPMC10101466
OpenAlexW4365444114

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.