ArticlePorcine health management2026
Veterinary antimicrobials practices for swine mycoplasmoses: a field survey and comparison with scientific and regulatory recommendations.
Article in Porcine health management, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mycoplasma infections pose a significant challenge in swine production because of their economic impact and the difficulties associated with diagnosis and treatment. Antimicrobials are often the only available option for combating mycoplasmoses despite reports of resistance to several molecules and the frequent chronic nature of infections, which can reduce treatment efficacy. This study aimed to investigate the use of antimicrobials against swine mycoplasmoses through an international field survey and to review the relevant scientific literature and regulatory recommendations. The survey was led by the MyMIC network, whose main objective is to standardise antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) methods for livestock mycoplasmas. The responses of 118 swine veterinarians across 25 countries were analysed. No significant variations in practices were observed between countries. Macrolides, tetracyclines, and pleuromutilins were the most prescribed antimicrobial classes (used in more than 40%, 20% and 5% of clinical cases, respectively), which is consistent with current recommendations. Additional diagnosis with laboratory-based methods was commonly reported, with only 2.5% of veterinarians indicating that they never used it. However, AST was not commonly performed; only 30% of respondents reported requesting it in more than half of the cases. Ineffective or critically important antibiotics, such as beta-lactams or fluoroquinolones, were occasionally prescribed (approximately 1% for each). Occasional deviations from the recommended dosages were also noted. These findings raise concerns regarding resistance selection and potential treatment failures. Our results underscore the need for enhanced diagnosis, especially AST, and for a wider dissemination and adoption of treatment guidelines to support the sustainable management of swine health. By developing and promoting harmonised AST protocols and enabling objective, data-driven prescriptions, MyMIC plays a key role in strengthening communication between swine veterinarians and diagnostic laboratories, thereby supporting international antimicrobial stewardship.
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.