Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17637920›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives2007

Antibiotic-resistant enterococci and fecal indicators in surface water and groundwater impacted by a concentrated Swine feeding operation.

Amy R Sapkota, Frank C Curriero, Kristen E Gibson, Kellogg J Schwab

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental health perspectives, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 201 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Towards the standardization ofWater research X · 2022
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Antibiotic Resistance in Recreational Waters: State of the Science.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Rapid Health Impact Assessment of a Proposed Poultry Processing Plant in Millsboro, Delaware.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019
    Article
  13. "Ag-Gag" Laws: Evolution, Resurgence, and Public Health Implications.New solutions : a journal of environmental and occupational health policy : NS · 2019
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Industrial Food Animal Production and Community Health.Current environmental health reports · 2015
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Amy R SapkotaDepartment of Environmental Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. amy@amysapkota.com
Frank C Curriero
Kristen E Gibson
Kellogg J Schwab
Johns Hopkins University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in swine feed can select for antibiotic resistance in swine enteric bacteria. Leaking swine waste storage pits and the land-application of swine manure can result in the dispersion of resistant bacteria to water sources. However, there are few data comparing levels of resistant bacteria in swine manure-impacted water sources versus unaffected sources.

objectivesThe goal of this study was to analyze surface water and groundwater situated up and down gradient from a swine facility for antibiotic-resistant enterococci and other fecal indicators.

methodsSurface water and groundwater samples (n = 28) were collected up and down gradient from a swine facility from 2002 to 2004. Fecal indicators were isolated by membrane filtration, and enterococci (n = 200) were tested for susceptibility to erythromycin, tetracycline, clindamycin, virginiamycin, and vancomycin.

resultsMedian concentrations of enterococci, fecal coliforms, and Escherichia coli were 4- to 33-fold higher in down-gradient versus up-gradient surface water and groundwater. We observed higher minimal inhibitory concentrations for four antibiotics in enterococci isolated from down-gradient versus up-gradient surface water and groundwater. Elevated percentages of erythromycin- (p = 0.02) and tetracycline-resistant (p = 0.06) enterococci were detected in down-gradient surface waters, and higher percentages of tetracycline- (p = 0.07) and clindamycin-resistant (p < 0.001) enterococci were detected in down-gradient groundwater.

conclusionsWe detected elevated levels of fecal indicators and antibiotic-resistant enterococci in water sources situated down gradient from a swine facility compared with up-gradient sources. These findings provide additional evidence that water contaminated with swine manure could contribute to the spread of antibiotic resistance.

Indexed as

Water MicrobiologyAnimalsDrug Resistance, MicrobialEnterococcusFecesSwine

Identifiers

PMID17637920
PMCPMC1913567
OpenAlexW2092488799

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.