Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37237795›Full record

ArticleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Can Improved Farm Biosecurity Reduce the Need for Antimicrobials in Food Animals? A Scoping Review.

Pankaj Dhaka, Ilias Chantziaras, Deepthi Vijay, Jasbir Singh Bedi, Iryna Makovska, Evelien Biebaut, Jeroen Dewulf

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Patterns ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    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

7 authors.

Pankaj DhakaFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Reproduction and Population Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-9402-8263
Ilias ChantziarasFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Reproduction and Population Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium.
Deepthi VijayDepartment of Veterinary Public Health, College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Thrissur 680651, India.
Jasbir Singh BediCentre for One Health, College of Veterinary Science, Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Ludhiana 141004, India.
Iryna MakovskaFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Reproduction and Population Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-9299-6682
Evelien BiebautFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Reproduction and Population Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium.
Jeroen DewulfFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Reproduction and Population Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-9843-5990

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Limited and judicious antimicrobial usage (AMU) is considered the key to saving the success of human and veterinary medicine in treating infections. With the limited alternatives for antimicrobials, farm biosecurity (and herd management) is considered a promising tool to mitigate the non-judicious AMU and to maintain animal health, production, and welfare. The present scoping review aims to analyse the effect of farm biosecurity on AMU in livestock systems and formulate recommendations. Peer-reviewed manuscripts published between 2001-2022 were analyzed using the PRISMA framework using PubMed, Scopus, and Science Direct databases. After applying the inclusion criteria, 27 studies were found to assess the effect of farm biosecurity (or management practices) on AMU at the herd/farm level in quantitative/semi-quantitative terms. These studies were carried out in 16 countries, of which 74.1% (20/27) were from 11 European countries. The highest number of studies were from pig farms [51.8% (14/27)], followed by poultry (chicken) farms [25.9% (7/27)], cattle farms [11.1% (3/27)], and a single study from a turkey farm. Two studies include both pig and poultry farms. Most of the studies were cross-sectional [70.4% (19/27)], seven were longitudinal, and one was a case-control study. Complex interactions were observed among factors influencing AMU, such as biosecurity measures, farm characteristics, farmers' attitudes, availability of animal health services, stewardship, etc. A positive association between farm biosecurity and reduction in AMU was observed in 51.8% (14/27) of the studies, and 18.5% (5/27) showed that improvement in farm management practices was associated with a reduction in AMU. Two studies highlighted that coaching and awareness among farmers might lead to a decrease in AMU. A single study on economic assessment concluded biosecurity practices as a cost-effective way to reduce AMU. On the other hand, five studies showed an uncertain or spurious association between farm biosecurity and AMU. We recommend the reinforcement of the concept of farm biosecurity, especially in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Further, there is a need to strengthen the evidence on the association between farm biosecurity and AMU in region- and species-specific farm settings.

Indexed as

antimicrobial usagecattlefarm biosecurityherd healthpigspoultry

Identifiers

PMID37237795
PMCPMC10215210

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.