ArticlePloS one2012
Quantifying antimicrobial resistance at veal calf farms.
Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Detection of cefotaxime- and enrofloxacin-resistant and mcr-1-positive Escherichia coli at farm level in younger and older calf groups across different production systems in Germany.BMC microbiology · 2026Article
- Antimicrobial Use and Resistance in Surplus Dairy Calf Production Systems.Microorganisms · 2022Review
- The Impact of Antimicrobial Stewardship Training on Calf Producers' Knowledge, Treatment Behaviors and Quantified Antimicrobial Use.Microorganisms · 2022Article
- Temporal dynamics of the fecal microbiota in veal calves in a 6-month field trial.Animal microbiome · 2020Article
- Antimicrobial resistance in commensal Escherichia coli in veal calves is associated with antimicrobial drug use.Epidemiology and infection · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedWagenaar, Jaap [corrected to Wagenaar, Jaap A]
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study was performed to determine a sampling strategy to quantify the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance on veal calf farms, based on the variation in antimicrobial resistance within and between calves on five farms. Faecal samples from 50 healthy calves (10 calves/farm) were collected. From each individual sample and one pooled faecal sample per farm, 90 selected Escherichia coli isolates were tested for their resistance against 25 mg/L amoxicillin, 25 mg/L tetracycline, 0.5 mg/L cefotaxime, 0.125 mg/L ciprofloxacin and 8/152 mg/L trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (tmp/s) by replica plating. From each faecal sample another 10 selected E. coli isolates were tested for their resistance by broth microdilution as a reference. Logistic regression analysis was performed to compare the odds of testing an isolate resistant between both test methods (replica plating vs. broth microdilution) and to evaluate the effect of pooling faecal samples. Bootstrap analysis was used to investigate the precision of the estimated prevalence of resistance to each antimicrobial obtained by several simulated sampling strategies. Replica plating showed similar odds of E. coli isolates tested resistant compared to broth microdilution, except for ciprofloxacin (OR 0.29, p ≤ 0.05). Pooled samples showed in general lower odds of an isolate being resistant compared to individual samples, although these differences were not significant. Bootstrap analysis showed that within each antimicrobial the various compositions of a pooled sample provided consistent estimates for the mean proportion of resistant isolates. Sampling strategies should be based on the variation in resistance among isolates within faecal samples and between faecal samples, which may vary by antimicrobial. In our study, the optimal sampling strategy from the perspective of precision of the estimated levels of resistance and practicality consists of a pooled faecal sample from 20 individual animals, of which 90 isolates are tested for their susceptibility by replica plating.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.