ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives2024
Limitations of Reporting Requirements under California's Livestock Antimicrobial Restriction Law.
Article in Environmental health perspectives, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of antimicrobial resistance genes on the ocular surface of patients with corneal infections in California and Malawi.International health · 2025Article
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAntimicrobial use in livestock production is considered a key contributor to growing antimicrobial resistance in bacteria. In 2015, California became the first state to enact restrictions on routine antimicrobial use in livestock production via Senate Bill 27 (SB27). SB27 further required the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to collect and disseminate data on antimicrobial use in livestock production.
objectiveThe goal of this report is to assess whether CDFA's data release allows us to evaluate how antimicrobial use changed after the implementation of SB27.
methodsWe combine the CDFA data with feed drug concentration ranges from the Code of Federal Regulation to evaluate the spread of plausible antimicrobial use trends. We also estimate antimicrobial consumption rates using data from the National Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS) and compare these to changes in medicated feed production reported by the CDFA. DISCUSSION: We show that CDFA's reported data are insufficient to reliably estimate whether antimicrobial usage has increased or decreased, most notably because no information is provided about the mass of antimicrobials approved for use or medicated feed drug concentrations. After incorporating additional external data on feed drug concentrations, one can at best provide uninformative bounds on the effect of SB27. We find some evidence that antimicrobial use has decreased by incorporating data on national sales of antimicrobials for food-producing animals, but the weakness of this inference underlines the need for improved data collection and dissemination, especially as other states seek to implement similar policies. We provide recommendations on how to improve reporting and data collection under SB27. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP13702.
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.