ArticleVeterinary sciences2025
Laboratory Testing to Inform Antimicrobial Use for Bovine Respiratory Disease: Perceptions of Canadian Feedlot Veterinarians.
Article in Veterinary sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Laboratory tests for bovine respiratory bacteria and antimicrobial resistance in commercial feedlot cattle: comparing culture, long-read metagenomics, and recombinase polymerase amplification.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Respiratory Bacteria and Antimicrobial Resistance Genes Detected by Long-Read Metagenomic Sequencing Following Feedlot Arrival, Subsequent Treatment Risk and Phenotypic Resistance in Feedlot Calves.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The Potential for Sample Testing at the Pen Level to Inform Prudent Antimicrobial Selection for Bovine Respiratory Disease Treatment: Investigations Using a Feedlot Simulation Tool.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Timely, accurate, and reliable laboratory tools are important for antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) in food animal production. The objectives of this study were to (1) identify factors that influence live animal respiratory sample collection for laboratory testing and (2) describe the potential for integration of laboratory testing of samples from live animals into an AMS strategy for bovine respiratory disease (BRD) management in Canadian feedlots. Utilizing focused ethnography, virtual key informant interviews were conducted with eight feedlot veterinarians from Alberta, Ontario, and Saskatchewan, Canada. Thematic analysis revealed four themes: (1) lived experience of feedlot veterinarians with laboratory testing for BRD pathogens and antimicrobial resistance (AMR), (2) evidence-informed BRD management that integrates multiple data sources and their components, (3) organizational factors that affect the uptake and use of laboratory tests, and (4) the role of laboratory testing to support AMS in BRD management. While sample collection and laboratory testing are commonly used for BRD and AMR research and surveillance, they are not routinely applied in everyday BRD management. Veterinarians identified key challenges with laboratory testing, including turnaround time, the need for clear benefits, practical implementation, and effective communication with feedlot managers. Laboratory testing must provide valuable, actionable insights to encourage its adoption in Canadian feedlot operations. If successful, such testing could support AMS and be used to justify antimicrobial use if this were to become a regulatory or market requirement.
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.