Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27094336›Full record

ReviewmBio2016

Antimicrobial Resistance in Agriculture.

Sophie Thanner, David Drissner, Fiona Walsh

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in mBio, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 155 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
155citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

155 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance ofOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025
    Article
  16. Multidrug-ResistantAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  17. Impact of Antimicrobial Resistance ofVeterinary sciences · 2025
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

95 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Sophie ThannerAgroscope, Institute for Livestock Sciences, Posieux, Switzerland.
David DrissnerAgroscope, Institute for Food Sciences, Waedenswil, Switzerland.
Fiona WalshDepartment of Biology, Maynooth University, Maynooth, County Kildare, Ireland Fiona.Walsh@nuim.ie.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this article, the current knowledge and knowledge gaps in the emergence and spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in livestock and plants and importance in terms of animal and human health are discussed. Some recommendations are provided for generation of the data required in order to develop risk assessments for AMR within agriculture and for risks through the food chain to animals and humans.

Indexed as

Drug Resistance, BacterialAgricultureAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacteriaBacterial ProteinsHumansLivestockPlantsAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacterial Proteins

Identifiers

PMID27094336
PMCPMC4850276

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.