Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24872333›Full record

Trial reportScientific reports2014

Impact of treatment strategies on cephalosporin and tetracycline resistance gene quantities in the bovine fecal metagenome.

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

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scientific reports, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Population Dynamics ofApplied and environmental microbiology · 2019
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Antimicrobial use and antimicrobial resistance in food animals.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2018
    Review
  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, KS 66506, USA.
H Morgan Scott1] Department of Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA [2].
Bo NorbyDepartment of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA.
Guy H LoneraganDepartment of Animal and Food Sciences, College of Agriculture and Natural resources, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA.
Javier VinascoDepartment of Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA.
Jennifer L CottellDepartment of Pathobiology, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1, Canada.
Gabhan ChalmersDepartment of Pathobiology, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1, Canada.
Muckatira M ChengappaDepartment of Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA.
Jianfa BaiDepartment of Diagnostic Medicine/Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA.
Patrick BoerlinDepartment of Pathobiology, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1, Canada.
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

The study objective was to determine the effects of two treatment regimens on quantities of ceftiofur and tetracycline resistance genes in feedlot cattle. The two regimens were ceftiofur crystalline-free acid (CCFA) administered to either one or all steers within a pen and subsequent feeding/not feeding of therapeutic doses of chlortetracycline. A 26-day randomized controlled field trial was conducted on 176 steers. Real-time PCR was used to quantify bla(CMY-2), bla(CTX-M), tet(A), tet(B), and 16S rRNA gene copies/gram of feces from community DNA. A significant increase in ceftiofur resistance and a decrease in tetracycline resistance elements were observed among the treatment groups in which all steers received CCFA treatment, expressed as gene copies/gram of feces. Subsequent chlortetracycline administration led to rapid expansion of both ceftiofur and tetracycline resistance gene copies/gram of feces. Our data suggest that chlortetracycline is contraindicated when attempting to avoid expansion of resistance to critically important third-generation cephalosporins.

Indexed as

AnimalsBacteriaBacterial InfectionsCattleCephalosporinsChlortetracyclineFecesMetagenomeRNA, Ribosomal, 16STetracycline ResistanceceftiofurCephalosporinsChlortetracyclineRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID24872333
PMCPMC5381505
OpenAlexW1963522526

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.