Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24260423›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

Effects of ceftiofur and chlortetracycline treatment strategies on antimicrobial susceptibility and on tet(A), tet(B), and bla CMY-2 resistance genes among E. coli isolated from the feces of feedlot cattle.

Neena Kanwar, H Morgan Scott, Bo Norby, Guy H Loneragan, Javier Vinasco, Matthew McGowan, Jennifer L Cottell, Muckatira M Chengappa, Jianfa Bai, Patrick Boerlin

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 71 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Current understanding of theFrontiers in veterinary science · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Neena KanwarDepartment of Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas, United States of America.
H Morgan Scott
Bo Norby
Guy H Loneragan
Javier Vinasco
Matthew McGowan
Jennifer L Cottell
Muckatira M Chengappa
Jianfa Bai
Patrick Boerlin
Kansas State University · USUniversity of Guelph · CAMichigan State University · USTexas Tech University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A randomized controlled field trial was conducted to evaluate the effects of two sets of treatment strategies on ceftiofur and tetracycline resistance in feedlot cattle. The strategies consisted of ceftiofur crystalline-free acid (CCFA) administered to either one or all of the steers within a pen, followed by feeding or not feeding a therapeutic dose of chlortetracycline (CTC). Eighty-eight steers were randomly allocated to eight pens of 11 steers each. Both treatment regimens were randomly assigned to the pens in a two-way full factorial design. Non-type-specific (NTS) E. coli (n = 1,050) were isolated from fecal samples gathered on Days 0, 4, 12, and 26. Antimicrobial susceptibility profiles were determined using a microbroth dilution technique. PCR was used to detect tet(A), tet(B), and bla CMY-2 genes within each isolate. Chlortetracycline administration greatly exacerbated the already increased levels of both phenotypic and genotypic ceftiofur resistance conferred by prior CCFA treatment (P<0.05). The four treatment regimens also influenced the phenotypic multidrug resistance count of NTS E. coli populations. Chlortetracycline treatment alone was associated with an increased probability of selecting isolates that harbored tet(B) versus tet(A) (P<0.05); meanwhile, there was an inverse association between finding tet(A) versus tet(B) genes for any given regimen (P<0.05). The presence of a tet(A) gene was associated with an isolate exhibiting reduced phenotypic susceptibility to a higher median number of antimicrobials (n = 289, median = 6; 95% CI = 4-8) compared with the tet(B) gene (n = 208, median = 3; 95% CI = 3-4). Results indicate that CTC can exacerbate ceftiofur resistance following CCFA therapy and therefore should be avoided, especially when considering their use in sequence. Further studies are required to establish the animal-level effects of co-housing antimicrobial-treated and non-treated animals together.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntiportersBacterial Proteinsbeta-LactamasesCattleCattle DiseasesCephalosporinsChlortetracyclineDrug Resistance, Multiple, BacterialEscherichia coliEscherichia coli InfectionsFecesMicrobial Sensitivity TestsAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntiportersBacterial Proteinsbeta-lactamase CMY-2beta-LactamasesceftiofurCephalosporinsChlortetracyclinetetA protein, Bacteria

Identifiers

PMID24260423
PMCPMC3834275
OpenAlexW2061941644

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.