FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3110214247> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3110214247 endingPage "105221" @default.
• W3110214247 startingPage "105221" @default.
• W3110214247 abstract "The increasing incidence of antimicrobial resistance represents a global threat. As a result, surveillance programmes monitoring antimicrobial consumption and resistance in animals have been implemented in several countries throughout the world. However, such programmes depend on the accurate and detailed collection of data on antimicrobial consumption. For this reason, the aim of this longitudinal study was to compare the consistency of data on antimicrobial consumption between three different data collection methods. Antimicrobial consumption data associated to udder health were collected from 20 veterinary practices and 92 dairy farms for 18 months. The compared data sources were: 1) data extracted from veterinary practice software 2) farm treatment journals and 3) on-farm discarded drug packages (garbage). Two different procedures were chosen to analyse the data issued from treatment journals: 1) only complete entries were analysed 2) entries with missing dosage were supplemented with the information provided by the Swiss Compendium of Veterinary Medicinal Products. The antimicrobial data were divided into intramammary preparations used during lactation (IMM), intramammary preparations used for dry off (DRY) and systemic treatments (SYS). We compared the quantities of injectors (IMM and DRY), the quantities of active substances (SYS) and the treatment incidences (TI) for the defined daily dose (DDD) per 1000 cow-days (IMM and SYS) and the defined course dose (DCD) per 1000 cow-days (DRY). Additionally, the variety of antimicrobial products among the different data sources was compared. The highest quantity of antimicrobials for IMM, DRY and SYS could be collected with the software data. The lowest quantity was collected by using the data of the treatment journal with only complete entries. For IMM and DRY, software and garbage performed similar, with agreement on the number of injectors used in 56.1% of the analysed cases. The widest variety of intramammary antimicrobial preparations was found in the garbage whilst most systemic preparations were collected using software data. The results of the study show a lack of data consistency between the three different data sources. None of the methods was able to collect the integral antimicrobial consumption in the participating farms. Finally, the results emphasise the need to implement a standardised system to quantify and assess the antimicrobial consumption at veterinary practice and farm level." @default.
• W3110214247 created "2020-12-07" @default.
• W3110214247 creator A5001084435 @default.
• W3110214247 creator A5015240816 @default.
• W3110214247 creator A5028508852 @default.
• W3110214247 creator A5050535137 @default.
• W3110214247 creator A5062148610 @default.
• W3110214247 creator A5071374767 @default.
• W3110214247 creator A5089650530 @default.
• W3110214247 date "2021-01-01" @default.
• W3110214247 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W3110214247 title "Antimicrobial consumption: Comparison of three different data collection methods" @default.
• W3110214247 cites W1990521808 @default.
• W3110214247 cites W2040103101 @default.
• W3110214247 cites W2071218165 @default.
• W3110214247 cites W2073372379 @default.
• W3110214247 cites W2089939894 @default.
• W3110214247 cites W2090909154 @default.
• W3110214247 cites W2142170127 @default.
• W3110214247 cites W2147851060 @default.
• W3110214247 cites W2189137321 @default.
• W3110214247 cites W2201597697 @default.
• W3110214247 cites W2230749264 @default.
• W3110214247 cites W2627082753 @default.
• W3110214247 cites W2729278855 @default.
• W3110214247 cites W2763442727 @default.
• W3110214247 cites W2942131599 @default.
• W3110214247 cites W2961360788 @default.
• W3110214247 cites W2974622889 @default.
• W3110214247 cites W2977827681 @default.
• W3110214247 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2020.105221" @default.
• W3110214247 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33310589" @default.
• W3110214247 hasPublicationYear "2021" @default.
• W3110214247 type Work @default.
• W3110214247 sameAs 3110214247 @default.
• W3110214247 citedByCount "7" @default.
• W3110214247 countsByYear W31102142472021 @default.
• W3110214247 countsByYear W31102142472022 @default.
• W3110214247 countsByYear W31102142472023 @default.
• W3110214247 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3110214247 hasAuthorship W3110214247A5001084435 @default.
• W3110214247 hasAuthorship W3110214247A5015240816 @default.
• W3110214247 hasAuthorship W3110214247A5028508852 @default.
• W3110214247 hasAuthorship W3110214247A5050535137 @default.
• W3110214247 hasAuthorship W3110214247A5062148610 @default.
• W3110214247 hasAuthorship W3110214247A5071374767 @default.
• W3110214247 hasAuthorship W3110214247A5089650530 @default.
• W3110214247 hasBestOaLocation W31102142471 @default.
• W3110214247 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W3110214247 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W3110214247 hasConcept C150903083 @default.
• W3110214247 hasConcept C2776344049 @default.
• W3110214247 hasConcept C2776921810 @default.
• W3110214247 hasConcept C2909960733 @default.
• W3110214247 hasConcept C30772137 @default.
• W3110214247 hasConcept C33070731 @default.
• W3110214247 hasConcept C36289849 @default.
• W3110214247 hasConcept C37621935 @default.
• W3110214247 hasConcept C42972112 @default.
• W3110214247 hasConcept C4937899 @default.
• W3110214247 hasConcept C501593827 @default.
• W3110214247 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W3110214247 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W3110214247 hasConcept C89423630 @default.
• W3110214247 hasConcept C94665300 @default.
• W3110214247 hasConceptScore W3110214247C142724271 @default.
• W3110214247 hasConceptScore W3110214247C144024400 @default.
• W3110214247 hasConceptScore W3110214247C150903083 @default.
• W3110214247 hasConceptScore W3110214247C2776344049 @default.
• W3110214247 hasConceptScore W3110214247C2776921810 @default.
• W3110214247 hasConceptScore W3110214247C2909960733 @default.
• W3110214247 hasConceptScore W3110214247C30772137 @default.
• W3110214247 hasConceptScore W3110214247C33070731 @default.
• W3110214247 hasConceptScore W3110214247C36289849 @default.
• W3110214247 hasConceptScore W3110214247C37621935 @default.
• W3110214247 hasConceptScore W3110214247C42972112 @default.
• W3110214247 hasConceptScore W3110214247C4937899 @default.
• W3110214247 hasConceptScore W3110214247C501593827 @default.
• W3110214247 hasConceptScore W3110214247C71924100 @default.
• W3110214247 hasConceptScore W3110214247C86803240 @default.
• W3110214247 hasConceptScore W3110214247C89423630 @default.
• W3110214247 hasConceptScore W3110214247C94665300 @default.
• W3110214247 hasFunder F4320323881 @default.
• W3110214247 hasLocation W31102142471 @default.
• W3110214247 hasLocation W31102142472 @default.
• W3110214247 hasLocation W31102142473 @default.
• W3110214247 hasOpenAccess W3110214247 @default.
• W3110214247 hasPrimaryLocation W31102142471 @default.
• W3110214247 hasRelatedWork W1967280682 @default.
• W3110214247 hasRelatedWork W1991197039 @default.
• W3110214247 hasRelatedWork W2049647664 @default.
• W3110214247 hasRelatedWork W2105714653 @default.
• W3110214247 hasRelatedWork W2134281150 @default.
• W3110214247 hasRelatedWork W2145518170 @default.
• W3110214247 hasRelatedWork W2893933052 @default.
• W3110214247 hasRelatedWork W2907811241 @default.
• W3110214247 hasRelatedWork W2957506744 @default.
• W3110214247 hasRelatedWork W3124338114 @default.

• next