Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17687594›Full record

ArticleMicrobial ecology2008

Salmonella, Campylobacter and Enterococcus spp.: their antimicrobial resistance profiles and their spatial relationships in a synoptic study of the Upper Oconee River basin.

R J Meinersmann, M E Berrang, C R Jackson, P Fedorka-Cray, S Ladely, E Little, J G Frye, B Mattsson

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Microbial ecology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Applied and environmental microbiology · 2021
    Article
  7. Antimicrobial Resistance inFrontiers in microbiology · 2021
    Article
  8. Free-Living Aquatic Turtles as Sentinels ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Genomic diversity ofWellcome open research · 2020
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

R J MeinersmannUSDA Agricultural Research Service, Russell Research Center, Athens, GA 30604, USA. Rick.Meinersmann@ars.usda.gov
M E Berrang
C R Jackson
P Fedorka-Cray
S Ladely
E Little
J G Frye
B Mattsson
Agricultural Research Service · USUniversity of Georgia · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rivers may serve as reservoirs for enteric organisms. Very little is known about the boundaries of microbial communities in moving bodies of water so this study was undertaken to find the limits of distribution of some bacteria, focusing on enteric organisms. The presence of Salmonella, Campylobacter, and Enterococcus spp. and the antimicrobial resistance phenotypes carried by these organisms was evaluated for the Upper Oconee River basin, a small river in the lower Piedmont of northeastern Georgia, USA. Samples were obtained from 83 sites during a 3-h period on a spring day (April 2005) in an approximately 30 x 20 km region. Campylobacter spp. was isolated at 12 sites. The Campylobacter isolates from three sites were resistant to tetracycline. Of the five short-variable region (SVR) subtypes of Campylobacter that were found, three were found at more than one site, two types were found twice, and one subtype was found three times. Enterococcus was isolated at 71 sites. E. casseliflavus was the most common species. Based on species identification and antimicrobial resistance patterns, 24 types of Enterococcus were found. Salmonella was isolated from 62 sites. Of the 19 Salmonella serovars that were isolated, serovar Muenchen accounted for about 20% of the isolates. The next three most common serovars isolated, Rubislaw, Hartford, and Give, accounted for about 44% of the river isolates. Antimicrobial resistance profiling offered limited differentiation of Salmonella isolates because only seven isolates were resistant to any antimicrobial. The sites at which Salmonella, Campylobacter, or Enterococcus were isolated did not correlate with each other or with the total coliform number or Escherichia coli count for the site. However, isolates of some of the same species and type occurred in clusters that were restricted to areas within 5 to 6 km.

Indexed as

Drug Resistance, BacterialAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacterial Typing TechniquesCampylobacterCluster AnalysisColony Count, MicrobialEnterococcusGeorgiaHumansMicrobial Sensitivity TestsRiversSalmonellaAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID17687594
OpenAlexW2016014982

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.