SynthesisBulletin of the World Health Organization2026
Interventions to reduce antimicrobial use in livestock: a systematic review and evidence map.
Synthesis in Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To identify and describe government policy targeting veterinary antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance in production animals globally and to map these interventions to identify evidence gaps. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, CAB Abstracts, Web of Science and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global databases from inception to April 2025 for studies that quantitatively assessed the impact of government-enacted policy interventions by measuring the change in antimicrobial use (for example, mg/kg biomass, mg of active ingredient or defined daily doses for animals) or antimicrobial resistance in production animals or humans. Two reviewers independently completed screening, data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment for identified studies. Findings: We identified 40 policy evaluations, all originating from the World Health Organization (WHO) Region of the Americas, European Region or Western Pacific Region. No eligible studies from other WHO regions were identified. Most studies (35/40) evaluated legislative or regulatory interventions and 26 were primarily bans or restrictions on specific antimicrobial uses. Most (34/40) articles reported decreases in antimicrobial use in animals or in antimicrobial resistance in animals or humans that were associated with policy implementation. However, the studies were methodologically heterogeneous and had a high risk of bias. Conclusion: This systematic review and evidence map fill an important gap in knowledge supporting evidence-informed action on antimicrobial resistance. However, we identified relatively few quantitative evaluations of government policies targeting veterinary antimicrobial use or resistance, which highlights the need for additional, methodologically robust, policy evaluations.
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.