Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41742484›Full record

ArticleJournal of veterinary internal medicine2026

Antimicrobial prescribing in dogs and cats with urinary tract disease in a prospective intervention trial.

Amy W Hii, James R Gilkerson, Kirsten E Bailey, Ri Scarborough, Anna E Sri, Brian Hur, Magdoline Awad, Lynsey Etheridge, Laura Y Hardefeldt

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of veterinary internal medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Amy W HiiAsia-Pacific Centre for Animal Health, Melbourne Veterinary School, Faculty of Science, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
James R GilkersonAsia-Pacific Centre for Animal Health, Melbourne Veterinary School, Faculty of Science, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Kirsten E BaileyAsia-Pacific Centre for Animal Health, Melbourne Veterinary School, Faculty of Science, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Ri ScarboroughAsia-Pacific Centre for Animal Health, Melbourne Veterinary School, Faculty of Science, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Anna E SriAsia-Pacific Centre for Animal Health, Melbourne Veterinary School, Faculty of Science, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Brian HurAsia-Pacific Centre for Animal Health, Melbourne Veterinary School, Faculty of Science, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Magdoline AwadGreencross Pet Wellness Company, North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia.
Lynsey EtheridgeGreencross Pet Wellness Company, North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia.
Laura Y HardefeldtAsia-Pacific Centre for Animal Health, Melbourne Veterinary School, Faculty of Science, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5780-7567

Funding

Australian Government LE160100026Australian Research Council Linkage Project LP190100424VetCompass Australia consortium
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVeterinarians often cite the cost as a barrier to performing culture and susceptibility (C&S) testing. HYPOTHESIS/

objectivesTo investigate the effects of fee-free C&S and to a decision support tool for urinary tract disease on antimicrobial prescribing behavior. ANIMALS: Twenty-one small animal general practice veterinary clinics in Melbourne, Australia were included in the study, 10 clinics in the intervention group and 11 clinics in the control group. Urine samples collected from dogs and cats were eligible.

methodsA prospective cohort study was conducted in which clinics in the intervention group were provided access to free urine C&S for dogs and cats with clinical signs of urinary tract disease and a decision support tool. Clinical histories were analyzed for both groups to determine antimicrobial prescribing behavior.

resultsA total of 480 urine C&S submissions were received from the intervention group and 636 consultations for patients with urinary tract disease were included in the control group. Patients in the control group were more likely to empirically prescribe antimicrobials (P = .04). A higher proportion of cats in the control group received cefovecin (48%) compared with cats in the intervention group (22%, P = .03). Patients in the intervention group also were more likely to be prescribed empirical antimicrobial treatment for a shorter period of time than in the control group (P ≤ .001). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: Removing the cost barrier to microbiological diagnostic testing and the provision of a decision support tool resulted in positive changes to antimicrobial prescribing behavior, particularly decreased prescribing frequency and shorter duration of antimicrobial treatment.

Indexed as

antimicrobialsbacteriaculture and susceptibility testingcystitisstewardshipurinalysis

Identifiers

PMID41742484
PMCPMC12881951

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.