Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25592262›Full record

ArticleVeterinary journal (London, England : 1997)2015

Antimicrobial susceptibility of Histophilus somni isolated from clinically affected cattle in Australia.

Lauren K Goldspink, Joanne L Mollinger, Tamsin S Barnes, Mitchell Groves, Timothy J Mahony, Justine S Gibson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Veterinary journal (London, England : 1997), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. An overview of the detection of bovine respiratory disease complex pathogens using immunohistochemistry: emerging trends and opportunities.Journal of veterinary diagnostic investigation : official publication of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians, Inc · 2024
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Histophilosis as a Natural Disease.Current topics in microbiology and immunology · 2016
    Review
  8. Antimicrobial usage and resistance in beef production.Journal of animal science and biotechnology · 2016
    Review
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

6 authors.

Lauren K GoldspinkBiosecurity Sciences Laboratory, Biosecurity Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4108, Australia; The University of Queensland, School of Veterinary Science, Gatton, Queensland 4343, Australia.
Joanne L MollingerBiosecurity Sciences Laboratory, Biosecurity Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4108, Australia.
Tamsin S BarnesThe University of Queensland, School of Veterinary Science, Gatton, Queensland 4343, Australia; The University of Queensland, Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation, Centre for Animal Science, St Lucia, Queensland 4072, Australia.
Mitchell GrovesThe University of Queensland, School of Veterinary Science, Gatton, Queensland 4343, Australia.
Timothy J MahonyThe University of Queensland, Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation, Centre for Animal Science, St Lucia, Queensland 4072, Australia.
Justine S GibsonThe University of Queensland, School of Veterinary Science, Gatton, Queensland 4343, Australia. Electronic address: gibson.j@uq.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study investigated antimicrobial resistance traits, clonal relationships and epidemiology of Histophilus somni isolated from clinically affected cattle in Queensland and New South Wales, Australia. Isolates (n = 53) were subjected to antimicrobial susceptibility testing against six antimicrobial agents (ceftiofur, enrofloxacin, florfenicol, tetracycline, tilmicosin and tulathromycin) using disc diffusion and minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) assays. Clonal relationships were assessed using repetitive sequence PCR and descriptive epidemiological analysis was performed. The H. somni isolates appeared to be geographically clonal, with 27/53 (47%) isolates grouping in one cluster from one Australian state. On the basis of disc diffusion, 34/53 (64%) isolates were susceptible to all antimicrobial agents tested; there was intermediate susceptibility to tulathromycin in 12 isolates, tilmicosin in seven isolates and resistance to tilmicosin in one isolate. Using MIC, all but one isolate was susceptible to all antimicrobial agents tested; the non-susceptible isolate was resistant to tetracycline, but this MIC result could not be compared to disc diffusion, since there are no interpretative guidelines for disc diffusion for H. somni against tetracycline. In this study, there was little evidence of antimicrobial resistance in H. somni isolates from Australian cattle. Disc diffusion susceptibility testing results were comparable to MIC results for most antimicrobial agents tested; however, results for isolates with intermediate susceptibility or resistance to tilmicosin and tulathromycin on disc diffusion should be interpreted with caution in the absence of MIC results.

Indexed as

Drug Resistance, BacterialAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsAustraliaCattleCattle DiseasesDisk Diffusion Antimicrobial TestsFemaleMaleMicrobial Sensitivity TestsPasteurellaceaePasteurellaceae InfectionsAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntimicrobial susceptibilityBovine respiratory diseaseDisc diffusionHistophilus somniMinimum inhibitory concentration

Identifiers

PMID25592262
PMCPMC7110471

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.