ReviewJAC-antimicrobial resistance2024
Comparing human and animal antimicrobial usage: a critical appraisal of the indicators used is needed.
Review in JAC-antimicrobial resistance, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adding dandelion to rabbit diets: enhancing the growth performance and meat quality by altering immune competence and gut microbiota.Microbiology spectrum · 2025Article
- The future of antibiotic use in livestock.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Quantification of Antimicrobial Use on Commercial Broiler Farms in Pakistan.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Comparisons between antimicrobial usage (AMU) in humans and food-producing animals are regularly made. The accuracy of such comparisons depends on the indicators used to quantify AMU. Indicators for AMU quantitatively relate use data (the numerator) to population data (the denominator). The denominator should be a proxy for the population at risk in a certain period when comparing the exposure of different populations to antimicrobials. Denominators based on numbers of animals slaughtered, such as the commonly used population correction unit, do not consider the time at risk of antimicrobial treatment. Production-based indicators underestimate animal AMU. Additionally, production-based indicators are fundamentally different from indicators used to quantify human AMU. Using such indicators to compare human and animal AMU therefore leads to biased results. More caution should be taken in selecting the indicator to quantify AMU when comparing AMU in food-producing animals and humans.
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.