ArticleOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2024
Reaching consensus amongst international experts on the use of high importance-rated antimicrobials in animals - a Delphi study.
Article in One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In Australia, antimicrobials are given an importance rating by the Australian Strategic and Technical Advisory Group on antimicrobial resistance. High importance antimicrobials are those essential for the treatment or prevention of infections in humans, where there are few or no treatment alternatives. In this study we consulted with experts from across human and animal health using the Delphi consensus-building process to establish the circumstances under which antimicrobials with high importance to human health could be used in animals in Australia. We used three rounds of online surveys. Group responses were provided to participants in each subsequent round to facilitate convergence of opinion. Consensus was defined as 80 % or more of respondents selecting the same option for a question. By the end of the third round, consensus was achieved on eight items. This included the use of high importance antimicrobials being appropriate if culture and sensitivity testing indicated the organism was resistant to low- and medium-rated antimicrobials that could be used to treat the case. If any high-importance antimicrobials are prescribed for animals there was also agreement that a clear indication for this use and justification for antimicrobial choice must be recorded in the medical history, along with the dose rate, route of administration, the duration and the time point for review of the condition and associated antimicrobial therapy. Appropriateness of use of high importance antimicrobials in critically ill animals where culture and sensitivity results are not available is still undefined. Further work is also required to establish which particular organisation should be notified of the use of high importance antimicrobials not registered for use in animals. The Delphi process was valuable in facilitating consensus amongst international experts from a broad range of health backgrounds and experience.
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.