ArticleAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Cost Analysis of the Belgian National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring in Livestock: Effects on Sampling Design and Statistical Performance.
Article in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesAs part of the European Union's harmonized monitoring framework, Belgium conducts antimicrobial resistance (AMR) monitoring in commensal bacteria from livestock. The aim of this study was to conduct a cost analysis of the national AMR monitoring in livestock, and to explore sampling size scenarios in relation to their associated costs and statistical performance (power and confidence) of monitoring.
methodsTo our knowledge, this is the first published cost evaluation using unit cost aggregation of a national AMR monitoring program in animals.
resultsThe testing of the different sample size scenarios showed that if the sample size increases, the costs increase linearly. A sample size increase of 10 samples/isolates (e.g., from 170 to 180) can increase the yearly total costs per animal species by 5.2%. Moreover, the testing of the different scenarios showed that if the sample size increases, the power and the confidence level also increase, providing a higher level of trust in the results of the monitoring program. The highest total monitoring costs per animal category were estimated for fattening pigs, broilers and veal calves (over 18% of total costs each, using 2024 data). Among the various monitoring activities, antimicrobial susceptibility testing emerged as the costliest component, representing 50.2% of the total monitoring costs.
conclusionsThe approach presented allows it to be used by other countries aiming to estimate the cost of their national AMR monitoring in animals or other similar activities. This economic and scenario testing analysis can be used to suggest informed suggestions to improve AMR monitoring in 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.