Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39088546›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Survey of antimicrobial and probiotic use practices in wildlife rehabilitation in the United States.

Elizabeth A Miller, Rachel Amato, Julia B Ponder, Irene Bueno

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. 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. Antimicrobial Resistance inVeterinary sciences · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  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.

Elizabeth A MillerDepartment of Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, Minnesota, United States of America.
Rachel AmatoThe Raptor Center, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, Minnesota, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-6202-038X
Julia B PonderThe Raptor Center, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, Minnesota, United States of America.
Irene BuenoBristol Veterinary School, University of Bristol, Langford, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3619-3038

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Antimicrobial resistance is a global health concern. As such, there have been increased efforts to monitor and standardize antimicrobial prescribing practices in humans and domestic animals. In contrast, there is relatively little known about specific prescribing practices in wild animals despite the wide use of antimicrobials and other microbial interventions, such as probiotics to treat captive wildlife. Therefore, the goal of this study was to examine current antimicrobial and probiotic use from a cross-section of wildlife rehabilitation facilities in the United States. An anonymous electronic survey was sent to 105 United States permitted wildlife facilities to collect information about admissions, current antimicrobial and probiotic use practices, and current staff knowledge and attitudes surrounding antimicrobial resistance and probiotic effectiveness. Respondents from over 50% of facilities participated in the survey (54/105), including 45 facilities that treated birds. All facilities reported using antimicrobials, including some from groups considered critically important for human medicine, for a wide range of medical conditions and prophylaxis. Among antibiotics, enrofloxacin and amoxicillin-clavulanic acid were the most commonly used. Antifungals were not as widespread, but itraconazole was the most commonly used. Over 75% of respondents said that their facilities would benefit from having standardized antimicrobial guidelines in place. Probiotics were also used in more than 50% of facilities, but there was notable disparity in opinions regarding their efficacy. The results of this survey are a first step towards understanding antimicrobial and probiotic use practices in the treatment of captive wildlife and developing an antimicrobial stewardship program for wildlife rehabilitation.

Indexed as

Animals, WildProbioticsAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsAnti-Infective AgentsHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesAnti-Bacterial AgentsAnti-Infective Agents

Identifiers

PMID39088546
PMCPMC11293748

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.