Correction sharpens UK BRD antibiotic prescribing survey

A correction notice in Frontiers in Veterinary Science has amended a 2026 survey on how UK farm veterinarians make antibiotic decisions for bovine respiratory disease in calves, tightening the published record around several factual and editorial errors. The correction, published July 16, 2026, affects country abbreviation formatting, respondent counts, figure citations, grammar, and selected data points in the results and discussion. Most notably, it revises one finding on prescribing behavior to say that a positive relationship with the farmer increased, rather than reduced, the likelihood of prescribing. (frontiersin.org)

The original article, published May 19, 2026, presented itself as the first UK study specifically focused on antibiotic decision-making for BRD in preweaned calves. BRD remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality in young calves and an important driver of antibiotic use, which is why prescribing behavior in this setting carries weight for antimicrobial stewardship efforts. The study used a mixed-methods survey of 95 UK farm veterinarians and was funded by Arwain DGC, a Welsh Government-backed antimicrobial stewardship program. (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)

The correction does not appear to overturn the paper’s central themes, but it does clean up several details that matter for interpretation. The respondent geography was revised from 43 veterinarians in England and 40 in Wales to 44 in England and 41 in Wales. Another corrected sentence changes the count of veterinarians who waited 24 to 48 hours to assess therapy effectiveness from approximately 39 to approximately 42, while keeping the percentage at 44.2%. The notice also fixes figure references and clarifies wording across the discussion. (frontiersin.org)

The underlying survey findings remain relevant. In the published article, oxytetracycline was the most selected first-line antibiotic for BRD in calves at 52.6%, while tulathromycin was the most selected second-line option in one figure-based summary. The study also found that risk of antimicrobial resistance and clinical experience were among the most important influences on first-line antibiotic choice. Meanwhile, antibiotic susceptibility testing was performed frequently by only a minority of respondents, and qualitative responses suggested some veterinarians relied more on prior farm-level outcomes than on in vitro results. (frontiersin.org)

The social side of prescribing is where the correction may draw the most attention. In the corrected version, the authors say BRD prescribing decisions rely on veterinarian-farmer trust and not solely on clinical factors, and the corrected results now align with that interpretation by stating that a positive relationship with the farmer increased the likelihood of prescribing. That fits with earlier UK research showing that diagnostic use, antibiotic treatment, and stewardship are shaped not only by test availability, but also by clinical observation, herd knowledge, and real-world practice pressures. (frontiersin.org)

There does not appear to be broad public industry reaction to the correction itself, which is typical for a journal erratum. Still, the paper’s themes echo prior UK literature. A 2020 Veterinary Record survey of UK livestock veterinarians found that diagnostic practice is influenced by multiple practical factors and that clinical observation and herd knowledge remain central in antibiotic selection. That broader context supports the idea that stewardship interventions for BRD will need to address workflow, trust, and decision support, not just drug choice. (research.ed.ac.uk)

Why it matters: For veterinary professionals, especially those involved in cattle practice, stewardship, or protocol development, the correction is a reminder that even modest wording changes can materially alter how survey evidence is interpreted. A finding that farmer relationships reduce prescribing suggests one kind of intervention; a finding that they increase prescribing suggests another, centered more on communication, accountability, and shared treatment thresholds. Because BRD is a high-use antibiotic setting, these distinctions matter when translating research into calf treatment plans, prescribing audits, and conversations with pet parents who increasingly expect clear antimicrobial stewardship standards across animal health. (frontiersin.org)

What to watch: The next step is whether this survey, now corrected, is used in UK cattle stewardship work, follow-up behavioral research, or practice guidance, and whether larger studies can validate how diagnostic habits, AMR concerns, and veterinarian-farmer dynamics interact in day-to-day BRD prescribing. (frontiersin.org)