ArticleFrontiers in antibiotics2023
Standardization and evaluation of indicators for quantifying antimicrobial use on U.S. dairy farms.
Article in Frontiers in antibiotics, 2023. 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.
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global One Health threat. A portion of AMR development can be attributed to antimicrobial use (AMU) in animals, including dairy cattle. Quantifying AMU on U.S. dairy farms is necessary to inform antimicrobial stewardship strategies and help evaluate the relationship between AMU and AMR. Many AMU indicators have been proposed for quantifying AMU in dairy cattle. However, these indicators are difficult to interpret and compare because they differ in the type of data used, the calculation approach, and the definitions of variables and parameters used in the calculation. Therefore, we selected 16 indicators (count-based, mass-based, and dose-based) applicable for quantifying AMU on U.S. dairy farms. We systematized the indicators by standardizing their variables and parameters to improve their interchangeability, interpretation, and comparability. We scored indicators against six data-driven criteria (assessing their accuracy, data and effort needs, and level of privacy concern) and five stewardship-driven criteria (assessing their ability to capture trends and inform antimicrobial stewardship). The derived standardized indicators will aid farmers and veterinarians in selecting suitable indicators based on data availability and stewardship needs on a farm. The comparison of indicators revealed a trade-off requiring farmers to balance the granularity of data necessary for an accurate indicator and effort to collect the data, and a trade-off relevant to farmers interested in data sharing to inform stewardship because more accurate indicators are typically based on more sensitive information. Indicators with better accuracy tended to score better in stewardship criteria. Overall, two dose-based indicators, estimating the number of treatments and administered doses, scored best in accuracy and stewardship. Conversely, two count-based indicators, estimating the length of AMU, and a mass-based indicator, estimating the mass of administered antimicrobials, performed best in the effort and privacy criteria. These findings are expected to benefit One Health by aiding the uptake of farm-level AMU indicators by U.S. dairy farms.
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.