Diagnostics and the challenge of antimicrobial resistance: a survey of UK livestock veterinarians’ perceptions and practices
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: This paper explores the current role and place of diagnostic tests in the treatment of farm animal disease. With the growing focus on reduced reliance on antibiotic medicines in both animal and human patient care, attention is increasingly being focused on the practice, the technology and the function of diagnostic tests and how these can support responsible antimicrobial use. Emerging diagnostic technologies offer the possibility of more rapid testing for bacterial disease, while food chain actors and others are increasingly seeking to make diagnostic tests mandatory before the use of critically important antibiotics. METHOD: This paper reports the findings of a recent large-scale online survey of UK farm animal veterinarians (n=153) which investigated current veterinary diagnostic practice with particular attention to the relationship between diagnostic test use and antibiotic treatment. RESULTS: Results revealed a range of factors that influence veterinary diagnostic practice and demonstrate the continuing importance of clinical observation and animal/herd knowledge in the selection of antibiotic treatment. CONCLUSION: The findings identify a considerable ambivalence on the part of farm animal veterinarians regarding the current and future uses of rapid and point-of-care diagnostic tests as a means of improving clinical diagnosis and addressing inappropriate antibiotic medicine use.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Field conditions, specifically budget constraints and the need for immediate decision-making, prevent the adoption of more sophisticated diagnostic methods.
“This reliance on low-tech methods aligns with Chan et al. (10), suggesting that while veterinarians recognise the value of laboratory data, the reality of field conditions, specifically budget constraints and the need for immediate decision-making, prevents the adoption of more sophisticated methods.”
From Understanding antibiotic decision-making for bovine respiratory disease: a survey of UK farm veterinarians (2026) · cites this paper as [10]
The available passages are bibliographic metadata, including the paper title under “1 Finished” (no page number), rather than findings about diagnostic practices. Searches for cost, time pressure, laboratory testing and barriers to adoption returned no passage addressing whether those factors prevent the use of more sophisticated methods. (LLM, conf=0.74)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Buller, H., Adam, K., Bard, A., Bruce, A., (Ray) Chan, K. W., Hinchliffe, S., Morgans, L., Rees, G., & Reyher, K. K. (2020) · Frontiers in Veterinary Science · doi:10.3389/fvets.2020.569545 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Self-citationPowell, A., Bard, A. M., & Rees, G. M. (2024) · Veterinary Record · doi:10.1002/vetr.4799 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Self-citationPrakoso, A. B., & Rees, G. M. (2026) · Frontiers in Veterinary Science · doi:10.3389/fvets.2026.1791479 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“In addition to productivity losses, BRD is a painful condition in calves, characterised by behavioural and physiological indicators, such as reduced feed intake, prolonged lying period, and elevated inflammatory biomarkers (9, 10).”
Self-citation
- Authors
- Chan, K. W., Bard, A. M., Adam, K. E., Rees, G. M., Morgans, L., Cresswell, L., Hinchliffe, S., Barrett, D. C., Reyher, K. K., & Buller, H.
- Affiliations
- University of Exeter (GB)
- University of Bristol (GB)
- University of Edinburgh (GB)
- Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Chan, Kin Wing
- ORCID
- Venue
- Veterinary Record
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2020-09-18
- Volume
- 187
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- e125-e125
- ISSN
- 0042-4900 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3044562220
- Cited by
- 22
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 1.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- Locations
- Veterinary Record (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (acceptedVersion)
- Explore Bristol Research (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Figshare (submittedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- UK Research and Innovation (ES/P008194/1)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology › Antibiotic Use and Resistance
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Veterinary Practice and Education Studies
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Clinical Biochemistry › Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
- Keywords
- antimicrobial resistance, veterinary diagnostics, antibiotic use, point-of-care testing, rapid diagnostic tests, clinical observation, responsible antimicrobial use, livestock diseases
- MeSH terms
- Farms, Animals, Animal Diseases, Animal Husbandry, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Perception, Surveys and Questionnaires, Veterinarians, Point-of-Care Systems, Livestock
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review