Cited by 22Antibiotic Use and ResistanceVeterinary Practice and Education StudiesBacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing

Diagnostics and the challenge of antimicrobial resistance: a survey of UK livestock veterinarians’ perceptions and practices

Open access
Chan, Kin Wing, Bard, Alison M, Adam, Katherine E, Rees, Gwen M, Morgans, Lisa, Cresswell, Liz, Hinchliffe, Stephen, Barrett, David C +2 more·2020·Veterinary Record

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/vr.105822

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

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
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
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