Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25548055›Full record

ArticleApplied and environmental microbiology2015

Impact of the use of β-lactam antimicrobials on the emergence of Escherichia coli isolates resistant to cephalosporins under standard pig-rearing conditions.

Karla Cameron-Veas, Marc Solà-Ginés, Miguel A Moreno, Lorenzo Fraile, Lourdes Migura-Garcia

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied and environmental microbiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 37% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Applied and environmental microbiology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Multidrug resistance inApplied and environmental microbiology · 2024
    Article
  7. Characterization of Antimicrobial Resistance inAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Article
  8. Antimicrobial Resistance in CommensalAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Risk Factors for Antimicrobial Use on Irish Pig Farms.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Observational
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Karla Cameron-VeasCentre de Recerca en Sanitat Animal, UAB-IRTA, Barcelona, Spain.
Marc Solà-GinésCentre de Recerca en Sanitat Animal, UAB-IRTA, Barcelona, Spain.
Miguel A MorenoCentro de Vigilancia Sanitaria Veterinaria, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain Departamento de Sanidad Animal, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Lorenzo FraileUniversidad de Lleida, Departamento de Producción Animal, Lleida, Spain.
Lourdes Migura-GarciaCentre de Recerca en Sanitat Animal, UAB-IRTA, Barcelona, Spain Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia Agroalimentàries, Barcelona, Spain Lourdes.migura@cresa.uab.cat.
Centre de Recerca en Sanitat Animal · ESUniversidad Complutense de Madrid · ESUniversitat de Lleida · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate if the treatments with ceftiofur and amoxicillin are risk factors for the emergence of cephalosporin resistant (CR) E. coli in a pig farm during the rearing period. One hundred 7-day-old piglets were divided into two groups, a control (n = 50) group and a group parenterally treated with ceftiofur (n = 50). During the fattening period, both groups were subdivided in two. A second treatment with amoxicillin was administered in feed to two of the four groups, as follows: group 1 (untreated, n = 20), group 2 (treated with amoxicillin, n = 26), group 3 (treated with ceftiofur, n = 20), and group 4 (treated with ceftiofur and amoxicillin, n = 26). During treatment with ceftiofur, fecal samples were collected before treatment (day 0) and at days 2, 7, 14, 21, and 42 posttreatment, whereas with amoxicillin, the sampling was extended 73 days posttreatment. CR E. coli bacteria were selected on MacConkey agar with ceftriaxone (1 mg/liter). Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), MICs of 14 antimicrobials, the presence of cephalosporin resistance genes, and replicon typing of plasmids were analyzed. Both treatments generated an increase in the prevalence of CR E. coli, which was statistically significant in the treated groups. Resistance diminished after treatment. A total of 47 CR E. coli isolates were recovered during the study period; of these, 15 contained blaCTX-M-1, 10 contained blaCTX-M-14, 4 contained blaCTX-M-9, 2 contained blaCTX-M-15, and 5 contained blaSHV-12. The treatment with ceftiofur and amoxicillin was associated with the emergence of CR E. coli during the course of the treatment. However, by the time of finishing, CR E. coli bacteria were not recovered from the animals.

Indexed as

beta-Lactam ResistanceDrug UtilizationAmoxicillinAnimal HusbandryAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsCephalosporinsElectrophoresis, Gel, Pulsed-FieldEscherichia coliEscherichia coli InfectionsFecesGenotypeMicrobial Sensitivity TestsMolecular TypingPlasmidsSwineAmoxicillinAnti-Bacterial AgentsceftiofurCephalosporins

Identifiers

PMID25548055
PMCPMC4325139
OpenAlexW1979535577

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.