↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of rational use of veterinary drugs especially antimicrobials and anthelmintics in Bishoftu, Central Ethiopia

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
126 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluation of rational use of veterinary drugs especially antimicrobials and anthelmintics in Bishoftu, Central Ethiopia
Published in
BMC Research Notes, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13104-015-1466-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Takele Beyene, Dagnachew Endalamaw, Yonas Tolossa, Ashenafi Feyisa

Abstract

Rational use of drugs in veterinary medicine has numerous benefits, such as increasing efficacy, decreasing the potential adverse effects, reducing risk of drug residue and combating development of microorganism's drug resistance. A retrospective study with the aim of evaluating the current rational use of veterinary drugs was conducted at college of veterinary medicine and agriculture veterinary teaching hospital and Ada district veterinary clinic, central Ethiopia. One thousand eight hundred and nineteen animal patients' encounters were randomly selected for the study from prescription papers and prescription registration books retrospectively. The average number of drugs prescribed per encounter was 1.23 with maximum of five. The percentage of encounters in which antimicrobials and anthelmintics was prescribed were 54.4 % (1216/2235) and 38.9 % (869/2235), respectively. The percentages of drugs prescribed by generic name and from essential veterinary drug list were 90.1 % (2014/2235) and 99.7 % (2229/2235), respectively. The most commonly prescribed antimicrobials and anthelmintics were oxytetracycline 1016 (45.5 %), penicillin and streptomycin combination 168 (7.5 %), sulfa drugs 23 (1.0 %), and albendazole 732 (32.8 %) and ivermectin 137 (6.1 %). Among the 1819 animal-patient encounters, only 57 % (n = 1037) of the prescriptions were written adequately, 43 % (n = 782) incorrectly prescribed and 1179 cases of the adequately specified prescription were tentatively diagnosed. For 656 (53.9 %) and 233 (26.8 %) inadequately specified cases antimicrobials and anthelmintics were prescribed, respectively. Antibiotics were prescribed irrationally for cases which were tentatively diagnosed as parasitic 21.6 % (n = 262) and viral to prevent secondary bacterial complications 6.0 % (n = 73). Among all patients that were admitted to veterinary clinics, 96.6 % (1757) were treated empirically without getting correct laboratory-supported diagnosis. Chi Square test for trend analysis showed a statistically significant association between irrational drug usage and year (p = 0.000). The findings had shown problems in generic prescribing, incorrect diagnosis, and non-availability of standard veterinary treatment guideline and drug formulary in the study area. Therefore, veterinary drugs, specially, antimicrobial agents should be judiciously used; and a wide scale study to safeguard the public from drug residual effects and antimicrobial resistance development is recommended.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 126 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 19%
Researcher 16 13%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Other 21 17%
Unknown 34 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 28 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 5%
Other 18 14%
Unknown 36 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 November 2015.
All research outputs
#17,774,112
of 22,829,083 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#2,829
of 4,263 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,736
of 274,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#117
of 186 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,263 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 274,283 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 186 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.