ArticleBMC veterinary research2026
Antibacterial use in Norwegian horses: a nationwide registry-based cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC veterinary research, 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
backgroundAntibacterials are essential for treating infections in horses, but the use contributes to antimicrobial resistance (AMR), which threatens animal and human health. Despite these concerns, antibacterial use in horses has not been systematically studied and described in Norway, and nationwide registry-based analyses in other countries are scarce. The aim of this study is to describe antibacterial use in Norwegian horses, 2022–2024, by analysing nationwide registry data, with a particular emphasis on gynecological and obstetrical conditions. In addition, we will evaluate the data quality in light of the upcoming EU reporting requirements for data on antibacterial use in horses.
resultsA total of 30,362 records reported to the Norwegian Veterinary Prescription Registry (VetReg) were included. Of these, 42.5% were reported by veterinarians and 57.5% by pharmacies. The two most common diagnostic groups treated were skin and hoof conditions and musculoskeletal conditions, accounting for approximately half of all records. Gynecological and obstetrical conditions accounted for 4% of the records. Antibacterial use (in kg active substance) was dominated by oral paste containing the combination of sulphonamide and trimethoprim (> 90% in all three years), followed by injections with beta-lactamase sensitive penicillins. AMEG category D antibacterials (prudent use) accounted for > 99% of the use. These patterns were also observed for gynecological and obstetrical conditions. The completeness of data on antibacterial use in horses in VetReg, in relation to sales data, increased from 75.5% in 2022 to 84.7% in 2024.
conclusionA higher proportion of AMEG category D antibacterials (> 99%) was observed in our study than in Spain (85%). However, increasing carriage of resistant E. coli in the general horse population suggests that the extensive use of sulphonamide + trimethoprim should be further evaluated. Prudent use could be evaluated to some extent, but the reporting of general organ-related diagnostic codes limited this evaluation. Lack of fully reliable population data for horses limits how differences in antibiotic use between years and countries can be described and evaluated. VetReg data quality for horses was in line with or better than for the species for which data are already reported to the European Medicines Agency.
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.