Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 301

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Antimicrobial drug use in food-producing animals and associated human health risks: what, and how strong, is the evidence?

Open access
Hoelzer, Karin, Wong, Nora, Thomas, Joe, Talkington, Kathy, Jungman, Elizabeth, Coukell, Allan·2017·BMC Veterinary Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance is a public health threat. Because antimicrobial consumption in food-producing animals contributes to the problem, policies restricting the inappropriate or unnecessary agricultural use of antimicrobial drugs are important. However, this link between agricultural antibiotic use and antibiotic resistance has remained contested by some, with potentially disruptive effects on efforts to move towards the judicious or prudent use of these drugs. MAIN TEXT: The goal of this review is to systematically evaluate the types of evidence available for each step in the causal pathway from antimicrobial use on farms to human public health risk, and to evaluate the strength of evidence within a 'Grades of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation'(GRADE) framework. The review clearly demonstrates that there is compelling scientific evidence available to support each step in the causal pathway, from antimicrobial use on farms to a public health burden caused by infections with resistant pathogens. Importantly, the pathogen, antimicrobial drug and treatment regimen, and general setting (e.g., feed type) can have significant impacts on how quickly resistance emerges or spreads, for how long resistance may persist after antimicrobial exposures cease, and what public health impacts may be associated with antimicrobial use on farms. Therefore an exact quantification of the public health burden attributable to antimicrobial drug use in animal agriculture compared to other sources remains challenging. CONCLUSIONS: Even though more research is needed to close existing data gaps, obtain a better understanding of how antimicrobial drugs are actually used on farms or feedlots, and quantify the risk associated with antimicrobial use in animal agriculture, these findings reinforce the need to act now and restrict antibiotic use in animal agriculture to those instances necessary to ensure the health and well-being of the animals.

Overview

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 · 10.1186/s12917-017-1131-3

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 301

Metadata

Authors
Hoelzer, K., Wong, N., Thomas, J., Talkington, K., Jungman, E., & Coukell, A.
Venue
BMC Veterinary Research
Published
2017-07-04
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
211-211
ISSN
1746-6148 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2729278855
Cited by
301
References
4
FWCI
18.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Antimicrobial drug use in food-producing animals and associated human health risks: what, and how strong, is the evidence? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s12917-017-1131-3
The paper
Hoelzer, K., Wong, N., Thomas, J., Talkington, K., Jungman, E., & Coukell, A. (2017). Antimicrobial drug use in food-producing animals and associated human health risks: what, and how strong, is the evidence? BMC Veterinary Research. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-017-1131-3

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.