ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2026
Antimicrobial usage in broiler poultry farms in Zambia.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although Zambia and many other countries globally have very high rates of antimicrobial resistance, there is a surprisingly limited amount of quantitative data on antimicrobial use (AMU) to guide important control actions. Here, we used the VetCAb-ID [Veterinary Consumption of Antibiotics-International Documentation; ©Tierärztliche Hochschule (TiHo) Hannover, Germany] system to conduct a prospective longitudinal analysis of AMU in broiler poultry farms in the Lusaka district of Zambia to quantify the use by the treatment frequency (TF) metric. The overall TF was 7, and the median treatment frequency per day (TFpd) was 0.14. Of all flocks, 80% of them received treatment. Metaphylactic treatment was applied to all flocks at all farms. Overall, a total of nine antimicrobial classes were used, namely tetracyclines, aminoglycosides, aminopenicillins, diaminopyrimidines, fluoroquinolones, macrolides, phosphonic acid derivatives, quinolones, and sulphonamides. Tetracyclines were the antimicrobials most commonly used (62.7%), followed by sulphonamides (15.7%). Prophylactic use accounted for the majority (54.9%) of the total AMU in this study. Therapeutic uses of antimicrobials were primarily for digestive (21.14%) and respiratory (23.43%) problems of the chickens. Of all the treatments recorded, a greater proportion (87.8%) were underdosed, and 7.3% were overdosed. This study demonstrates the feasibility of farm-level monitoring of AMU data from Zambian poultry farms and provides the first quantitative trends of AMU in poultry farms in Zambia. Our findings of the widespread use of antimicrobials for prophylaxis, incorrect dosing patterns, and the relative usage of the highest-priority critically important antimicrobials in Zambian broiler poultry farms are suggestive of misuse. There is a need for continued education about the issue of antimicrobial resistance, application of antimicrobial stewardship, and the establishment of monitoring and benchmarking systems.
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.