ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2025
Assessment of a program for monitoring antimicrobial purchase and resistance in
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2025. 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.
- Syndrome-specific antimicrobial escalation and diagnostic stewardship gaps in large-scale Hungarian pig farms: a cross-sectional survey.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- Prevalence and antimicrobial drug resistance of gram-negative bacteria in dairy feed and water: a One Health concern.Frontiers in veterinary science · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) poses significant challenges to health and treatment options in both human and veterinary medicine. Animal AMR monitoring in the US evaluates carcasses, retail meat, live animals, and diagnostic laboratory submissions; however, there is a lack of consistent on-farm monitoring of use and resistance. Methods: In 2020, 153 pig farms in the Midwestern United States enrolled in an antimicrobial purchase and resistance monitoring program. Intestinal samples or fecal swabs were collected biannually for 3 years from pigs and their dunging areas; antibiotic purchase data were tracked. Results: Tetracyclines were the most purchased, and penicillins were the most used antibiotic class across farm types. For pig samples, more isolates exhibited MIC values at the high end of the tested range among Discussion: Individual ages of pigs were a likely confounder and were not controlled for, as these data were not reliably collected. A greater frequency of monitoring, along with controlling for age, recent treatments, and disease events at the individual level, would improve farm-level insights from on-farm AMR monitoring. Currently, the interpretation of phenotypic AMR data for resistance monitoring in swine medicine is limited by the lack of established veterinary breakpoints for enteric organisms. The available NARMS breakpoints are designed for humans, can be used for public health monitoring, and are likely to be applicable primarily to gastrointestinal infections involving the same bacteria in farm animals.
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.