CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 39Antibiotic Use and ResistanceVeterinary Practice and Education StudiesAnimal Disease Management and Epidemiology

Veterinary Diagnostic Practice and the Use of Rapid Tests in Antimicrobial Stewardship on UK Livestock Farms

Open access
Buller, Henry, Adam, Katie, Bard, Alison, Bruce, Ann, (Ray) Chan, Kin Wing, Hinchliffe, Stephen, Morgans, Lisa, Rees, Gwen +1 more·2020·Frontiers in Veterinary Science
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2020.569545PMC PMC7593326
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In this paper we consider the shifting role, practice and context of veterinary diagnosis in addressing concerns over what is, in the context of the growing threat of antimicrobial resistance, considered unnecessary or excessive antimicrobial medicine use in UK livestock farms. With increasing policy and regulatory interest in diagnostic practices and technologies, coupled with an expanding focus on the development and deployment of new rapid and point-of-care on-farm diagnostic testing, this paper investigates current diagnostic practices amongst veterinarians working on dairy, pig and poultry farms in Great Britain (England, Wales, and Scotland) and, more specifically, veterinarians' use and perceptions of new and emerging rapid and point-of-care diagnostic tests. Drawing on a series of 30 semi-structured interviews with farm animal veterinary professionals across the three sectors, this paper examines the manner in which such tests are both used and anticipated in clinical farm animal veterinary practice and the possible impact rapid test technologies might have on broader farm animal health management and disease control. Analysis of the transcribed interviews reveals a number of complexities around the use of rapid and point-of-care diagnostic tests. The relative rapidity and simplification of such tests, facilitating immediate treatment responses, is held in balance against both the accuracy and the more detailed and documented procedures of established laboratory testing routes. In situations of multifaceted on-farm etiologies, respondents maintained that rapid tests may offer restricted diagnostic capabilities, though in other situations they were found to offer ready confirmation of disease presence. A third complexity arising from the growth of rapid and point-of-care testing and revealed in this study relates to the shifting distribution of responsibilities in animal health care within contemporary food chains. The growing availability of rapid and point-of-care tests effectively diversifies the range of diagnostic actors with consequences for the flow of diagnostic and disease information. The veterinarians in this study identified areas where new rapid and point-of-care tests would be of particular value to them in their clinical practice particularly in addressing concerns over inappropriate antimicrobial use in animal treatment. However, despite the considerable policy advocacy on rapid and point-of-care tests as key tools in shifting diagnostic practice and reducing unnecessary antimicrobial use, veterinarians in this study, while recognizing the potential future role of such tools and technologies, nonetheless viewed diagnostic practice as a far more complex process for which rapid tests might constitute only a part.

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 · 10.3389/fvets.2020.569545

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Barriers to the responsible use of antibiotics include cost, time constraints, a lack of rapid diagnostic tools, and farmer expectations.

    “Barriers to the responsible use of antibiotics include cost, time constraints, a lack of rapid diagnostic tools, and farmer expectations (25, 26).”

    From Understanding antibiotic decision-making for bovine respiratory disease: a survey of UK farm veterinarians (2026) · cites this paper as [26]

  • Vaccination is considered a prevention culture to reduce reliance on routine antimicrobial usage.

    “It also suggests that vaccination is considered a prevention culture to reduce reliance on routine antimicrobial usage (26).”

    From Understanding antibiotic decision-making for bovine respiratory disease: a survey of UK farm veterinarians (2026) · cites this paper as [26]

  • Respondents reported switching to a different antibiotic class when BRD cases did not resolve with first-line therapy, usually assessed between 24 and 48 h.

    “When treating BRD cases that did not resolve with first-line therapy (usually assessed between 24 and 48 h), respondents reported switching to a different antibiotic class in accordance with infection control recommendations to prevent AMR (24, 26).”

    From Understanding antibiotic decision-making for bovine respiratory disease: a survey of UK farm veterinarians (2026) · cites this paper as [26]

    The Methods section describes interviews with livestock veterinarians, and the Diagnosis and Antimicrobial Use section discusses antimicrobial stewardship. Neither the supplied passages nor searches for BRD, first-line treatment, antibiotic switching, and 24–48 hours yielded a passage reporting the claimed response to treatment failure. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 73 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. [1]Review of Antimicrobial Resistance Rapid Diagnostics: Stopping Unnecessary Use of Antibiotics. The Review on Antimicrobial Resistance. London: H.M. Government and the Wellcome Trust (2015).
  2. [2]Review of Antimicrobial Resistance Antimicrobials in Agriculture and the Environment: Reducing Unnecessary Use and Waste. The Review on Antimicrobial Resistance. London: H.M. Government and the Wellcome Trust (2015).
  3. [3]Review of Antimicrobial Resistance. Tackling Drug-Resistant Infections Globally: Final Report. The Review on Antimicrobial Resistance. London: H.M. Government and the Wellcome Trust (2016).
  4. [22]Kahn LH One Health and the Politics of Antibiotics. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press (2016).
  5. [35]Podolsky S The Antibotic Era: Reform, Resistance and the Pursuit of Rational Therapeutics. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press (2015).
  6. [44]Rabinow O. Making PCR: A Story of Biotechnology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press (1996).
  7. [82]Buller H Hinchliffe S Hockenhull J Barrett D Reyher K Butterworth A Systematic Review and Social Research to Further Understanding of Current Practice in the Context of Using Antimicrobials in Livestock Farming and to Inform Appropriate Interventions to Reduce Antimicrobial Resistance Within the Livestock Sector. Research Report 000558. London: Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2015).
  8. [87]Haraway D When Species Meet. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota University Press (2008).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Buller, H., Adam, K., Bard, A., Bruce, A., (Ray) Chan, K. W., Hinchliffe, S., Morgans, L., Rees, G., & Reyher, K. K.
Affiliations
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
Corresponding author
Buller, Henry
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Veterinary Science
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2020-10-15
Volume
7
Pages
569545-569545
ISSN
2297-1769 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fvets.2020.569545
PMC
PMC7593326
OpenAlex
W3093207106
Cited by
39
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1
FWCI
2.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Veterinary Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council
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 › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Animal Disease Management and Epidemiology
Keywords
veterinary diagnostics, rapid diagnostic tests, point-of-care testing, antimicrobial stewardship, antimicrobial resistance, livestock farms, dairy farming, pig farming, poultry farming, veterinarians' perceptions, diagnostic accuracy, disease control, animal health management, food chain

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