ArticleActa veterinaria Scandinavica2024
A registry-based comparative analysis of antibiotic usage reporting for adult cattle on Danish dairy farms.
Article in Acta veterinaria Scandinavica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Antimicrobial usage in broiler poultry farms in Zambia.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- Living labs opened dialogues about antibiotic use in dairy cattle and pig sectors - Insights from a Danish case study based on participatory action research.Acta veterinaria Scandinavica · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAntimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a significant global health concern, necessitating the monitoring of antimicrobial usage (AMU). However, there is a lack of consensus on the standardized collection and reporting of AMU data in the veterinary field. In Denmark, the Danish Cattle Database (DCDB) contains treatment information on animal level, which allows counting of number of treatments carried out, used daily doses (UDD). The Danish VetStat database (VetStat) contains information on veterinary medicinal prescriptions at farm level and uses fixed standard doses of each product to calculate number of daily treatments, animal daily doses (ADD). This study aimed to compare two different numerators, UDD and ADD, used to describe AMU on Danish cattle farms, and estimate their correlation.
resultsRoutinely collected registry data from conventional dairy farms in Denmark for 2019 were used, including a total of 2,197 conventional dairy farms. The data from VetStat and the DCDB were aggregated and analysed, and treatment frequencies (TF) were calculated for both UDD and ADD, adjusting for farm size. Spearman correlation analysis and Bland-Altman plots were employed to assess the relationship and agreement between TF for ADD and UDD, respectively. The results showed a high correlation between TF for ADD and UDD for most prescription groups, i.e., groups used to categorise antibiotics based on target organs. An exception is found for the Udder prescription group, where a systematic underreporting of UDD compared to ADD was observed. This discrepancy may be due to combination treatments, and potential missing or grouped registrations in the DCDB.
conclusionsOur UDD and ADD comparison yields valuable insights on farm-level AMU. We observe strong correlations between UDD and ADD, except for udder treatments, where some farms report only 1/3 UDD compared to ADD, indicating potential underreporting. Further investigations are needed to understand the factors contributing to these patterns and to ensure the accuracy and completeness of recorded information. Standardizing AMU data collection and reporting remains crucial to tackle the global challenge of AMR effectively.
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.