Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40462252›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2025

Government policy interventions to reduce veterinary antimicrobial consumption in production animals: a protocol for a systematic review and evidence map.

Kayla Strong, Fiona Emdin, Sam Orubu, Susan Rogers Van Katwyk, Heather Ganshorn, Jeremy Grimshaw, Mathieu J P Poirier

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

7 authors.

Kayla StrongGlobal Strategy Lab, York University, North York, ON, Canada. Kayla.strong@globalstrategylab.org.ORCID 0009-0002-9555-3953
Fiona EmdinGlobal Strategy Lab, York University, North York, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-3549-0551
Sam OrubuGlobal Strategy Lab, York University, North York, ON, Canada.
Susan Rogers Van KatwykGlobal Strategy Lab, York University, North York, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1758-8635
Heather GanshornLibraries and Cultural Resources, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0410-4232
Jeremy GrimshawClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Health Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8015-8243
Mathieu J P PoirierGlobal Strategy Lab, York University, North York, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-3842-0011

Funding

CIHR 149542Social Sciences & Humanities Research Council 895-2022-1015Wellcome Trust 222422/Z/21/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGlobally, agricultural production systems consume two-thirds of all antimicrobials. These systems are used to raise animals that produce products for consumption, such as meat, eggs, milk, and wool. The World Bank estimates that by 2030, AMR will reduce global livestock production by up to 7.5%, resulting in economic losses of up to one trillion USD. Governments worldwide have implemented various policies to promote antimicrobial stewardship in production animals, such as requiring veterinary prescriptions for antimicrobial use, restricting certain antimicrobials, and prohibiting antimicrobial use for growth promotion. However, the efficacy of these measures remains uncertain, necessitating a comprehensive review to guide policymakers. This review will identify and describe implemented government policy interventions to reduce veterinary AMU and AMR in production animals. A secondary analysis will map the policy pathways and the stakeholders involved in their successful implementation.

methodsAn electronic search strategy has been developed in consultation with a public health librarian and a veterinary health librarian. CAB Abstracts, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and ProQuest Dissertations will be searched, and additional studies will be identified using gray literature searches. The intervention of interest is any policy intervention enacted by a government or government agency in any country to change antimicrobial use in production animals. For inclusion within the review, studies must (1) describe the government policy, (2) quantitatively measure the impact of the policy in production animals using a rigorous study design, and (3) measure the impact of the intervention through antimicrobial use (AMU) or AMR. Two independent reviewers will screen for eligibility using defined criteria, and data will be extracted using Covidence software and Excel, respectively. Results will be synthesized narratively and visually (using maps and Sankey plots) to identify evidence gaps. DISCUSSION: This systematic review is intended to inform future government policies addressing antimicrobial resistance and antimicrobial use in production animal systems. It will also inform future research priorities by identifying evidence gaps about the effectiveness of various policy interventions. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science framework.

Indexed as

Animal HusbandryAnti-Infective AgentsAntimicrobial StewardshipHealth PolicyLivestockAnimalsSystematic Reviews as TopicAnti-Infective AgentsAMRAntimicrobial resistanceGovernmentPolicyProtocolSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID40462252
PMCPMC12131453

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.