Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38032877›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Validation, visibility, vagueness and variation: A qualitative assessment of existing veterinary guidelines for antimicrobial use in cattle and sheep in the UK.

Caroline M Best, Alison M Bard, Gwen M Rees, Kristen K Reyher

Abstract 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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors.

Caroline M BestUniversity of Bristol Veterinary School, Langford, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-5622-0040
Alison M BardUniversity of Bristol Veterinary School, Langford, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Gwen M ReesDepartment of Life Sciences, Aberystwyth University, Aberystwyth, Ceredigion, United Kingdom.
Kristen K ReyherUniversity of Bristol Veterinary School, Langford, Bristol, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Antimicrobials are essential in veterinary medicine to treat and control bacterial disease in animals. Their prudent use in food-producing animals has been encouraged to reduce the development and spread of antimicrobial resistance. National and international guidelines for responsible antimicrobial use have been developed as tools to guide and rationalise antimicrobial prescribing decisions by veterinarians and usage decisions by farmers. Yet, there is little understanding of whether these existing guidelines are fit for purpose. Accordingly, this study rigorously assessed 128 veterinary guidelines for antimicrobial use in ruminants in the UK, following established qualitative methodologies. Findings revealed four pertinent themes: validation of the veterinarian as the prescriber, visibility of responsible use realities, vagueness in interpretation and variation in directing behaviour. These themes encompassed the roles and responsibilities of the veterinarian and the realities of prescribing scenarios, alongside concerns relating to the specificity within and variation between guidelines. Resultant recommendations to inform and support the future development of guidelines include establishing species-specific and disease-specific guidelines, expanding guidelines to include disease prevention measures, including definitions to resolve vagueness and promoting congruence in interpretation, encouraging the development of practice-level guidelines to endorse collaboration and ownership, and fostering active working between stakeholders to align priorities and messaging.

Indexed as

Anti-Infective AgentsBacterial InfectionsVeterinariansAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsCattleFarmersHumansSheepUnited KingdomAnti-Bacterial AgentsAnti-Infective Agents

Identifiers

PMID38032877
PMCPMC10688698

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.