Cross-sectional studyindependent cross-checkabstract checked I-CHK-117 standard review

Egyptian farms report routine antibiotic use, often without medical need

Antimicrobial use in animal farms in Egypt: rates, patterns, and determinants.

Overview

ElSayed N et al.. J Egypt Public Health Assoc 2025 · PMID 39828782 · DOI 10.1186/s42506-024-00180-w

All 111 farms used antibiotics; 65% also used them for prevention or growth.

Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: low

Study explained simply

What did the researchers want to find out?: What antimicrobials are used on Egyptian animal farms, for what purposes, and why?
How was the study done?: Cross-sectional survey of farm personnel
How many people, animals or samples were studied?: 111 of 150 farms (74% response)
What was actually found?: All surveyed personnel reported antimicrobial use; 65% used them for non-therapeutic purposes (prevention or growth promotion). Non-therapeutic use had no impact on FCR in any farm type. Most used: penicillins 81%, macrolides 78%, tetracyclines 72%. Half used colistin; 55% of these non-therapeutically.
How large was the observed effect?: All surveyed personnel reported antimicrobial use; 65% used them for non-therapeutic purposes (prevention or growth promotion). Non-therapeutic use had no impact on FCR in any farm type. Most used: penicillins 81%, macrolides 78%, tetracyclines 72%. Half used colistin; 55% of these non-therapeutically.
What do the results mean in everyday life?: In Egypt, routine antibiotic use in animals is common.
What are the study's limitations?: Self-report; Farms selected from a private platform list; Small sample
What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?: Supports 'routine antibiotics' for Egypt.
Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?: Not applicable to the EU (growth promoters banned since 2006).
What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?: Not representative of all Egyptian farms.

What antimicrobials are used on Egyptian animal farms, for what purposes, and why?

Study design: Cross-sectional study – Cross-sectional survey of farm personnel
Population: Personnel of poultry, cattle and mixed farms in 15 governorates
Country: Egypt
Period: not stated in abstract
Sample size: 111 of 150 farms (74% response)
Inclusion and exclusion criteria: as described in the abstract

Results: All surveyed personnel reported antimicrobial use; 65% used them for non-therapeutic purposes (prevention or growth promotion). Non-therapeutic use had no impact on FCR in any farm type. Most used: penicillins 81%, macrolides 78%, tetracyclines 72%. Half used colistin; 55% of these non-therapeutically.
Absolute risks: not reported
Authors' conclusion: Antimicrobials are used unanimously, including colistin; non-therapeutic use did not improve FCR; Egyptian AMU guidelines are urgently needed.

Shows routine and non-therapeutic use in Egypt; the null FCR result is observational.

Direct Egyptian evidence on routine antibiotic use in farms, including poultry.

All 111 farms used antibiotics; 65% also used them for prevention or growth.

Multidimensional assessment
Multidimensional assessment
Authenticity of the source	verified
Methodological quality	low
Risk of bias	high
Precision of results	low
Directness	direct
Reproducibility	not replicated
Consistency with the overall evidence	consistent
Regional transferability	low
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)	not applicable