Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24465637›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Alarming proportions of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in wound samples from companion animals, Germany 2010-2012.

Szilvia Vincze, Ivonne Stamm, Peter A Kopp, Julia Hermes, Cornelia Adlhoch, Torsten Semmler, Lothar H Wieler, Antina Lübke-Becker, Birgit Walther

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

57 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 159 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Methicillin-ResistantAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. The Epidemiology of Animal-Associated Methicillin-ResistantAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Pet animals as reservoirs for spreading methicillin-resistantJournal of advanced veterinary and animal research · 2023
    Article
  14. Antibiofilm Activity ofLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Szilvia VinczeInstitute of Microbiology and Epizootics, Veterinary Faculty, Free University Berlin, Germany.
Ivonne StammVet Med Labor GmbH, Division of IDEXX Laboratories, Ludwigsburg, Germany.
Peter A KoppVet Med Labor GmbH, Division of IDEXX Laboratories, Ludwigsburg, Germany.
Julia HermesDepartment of Infectious Diseases Epidemiology, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany.
Cornelia AdlhochDepartment of Infectious Diseases Epidemiology, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany.
Torsten SemmlerInstitute of Microbiology and Epizootics, Veterinary Faculty, Free University Berlin, Germany.
Lothar H WielerInstitute of Microbiology and Epizootics, Veterinary Faculty, Free University Berlin, Germany.
Antina Lübke-BeckerInstitute of Microbiology and Epizootics, Veterinary Faculty, Free University Berlin, Germany.
Birgit WaltherInstitute of Microbiology and Epizootics, Veterinary Faculty, Free University Berlin, Germany.
Freie Universität Berlin · DEIDEXX Laboratories (Germany) · DERobert Koch Institute · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Staphylococcus (S.) aureus is an important cause of wound infections in companion animals, and infections with methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) are of particular concern due to limited treatment options and their zoonotic potential. However, comparable epidemiological data on MRSA infections in dogs, cats and horses is scarce, also limiting the knowledge about possible links to MRSA isolates from human populations. To gain more knowledge about the occurrence and genotypic variation of MRSA among wound swabs of companion animal origin in Germany we performed a survey (2010-2012) including 5,229 samples from 1,170 veterinary practices. S. aureus was identified in 201 (5.8%) canine, 140 (12.2%) feline and 138 (22.8%) equine swabs from a total of 3,479 canine, 1,146 feline and 604 equine wounds, respectively. High MRSA rates were identified with 62.7%, 46.4% and 41.3% in S. aureus of canine, feline and equine origin, respectively. Further genotyping including spa typing and multilocus sequence typing (MLST) revealed a comparable distribution of spa types among canine and feline MRSA with CC22 (47.6%; 49.2%) and CC5 (30.2%; 29.2%) as predominant lineages followed by CC398 (13.5%; 7.7%) and CC8 (4.0%; 9.2%). In contrast, the majority of equine MRSA belonged to CC398 (87.7%). Our data highlight the importance of S. aureus and MRSA as a cause of wound infections, particularly in cats and horses in Germany. While "human-associated" MRSA lineages were most common in dogs and cats, a remarkable number of CC398-MRSA was detected in horses, indicating a replacement of CC8-MRSA as the predominant lineage within horses in Germany. These data enforce further longitudinal epidemiological approaches to examine the diversity and temporal relatedness of MRSA populations in humans and animals to assess probable sources of MRSA infections. This would enable a sound risk assessment and establishment of intervention strategies to limit the additional spread of MRSA.

Indexed as

AnimalsCatsDogsGermanyHorsesIncidenceMethicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureusPetsStaphylococcal InfectionsWounds and Injuries

Identifiers

PMID24465637
PMCPMC3896405
OpenAlexW2075858654

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.