Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27829035›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Epidemiology of Antimicrobial Resistance in Escherichia coli Isolates from Raccoons (Procyon lotor) and the Environment on Swine Farms and Conservation Areas in Southern Ontario.

Kristin J Bondo, David L Pearl, Nicol Janecko, Patrick Boerlin, Richard J Reid-Smith, Jane Parmley, Claire M Jardine

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. American crocodiles (Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Frontiers in veterinary science · 2020
    Article
  9. Assessing Transmission of Antimicrobial-ResistantApplied and environmental microbiology · 2019
    Article
  10. Article
  11. ESBL-producingFood safety (Tokyo, Japan) · 2017
    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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Kristin J BondoDepartment of Pathobiology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6186-5599
David L PearlDepartment of Population Medicine, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Nicol JaneckoDepartment of Population Medicine, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Patrick BoerlinDepartment of Pathobiology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Richard J Reid-SmithDepartment of Pathobiology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Jane ParmleyDepartment of Pathobiology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Claire M JardineDepartment of Pathobiology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
University of Guelph · CAPublic Health Agency of Canada · CAUniversity of Veterinary Sciences Brno · CZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Antimicrobial resistance is a global threat to livestock, human and environmental health. Although resistant bacteria have been detected in wildlife, their role in the epidemiology of antimicrobial resistance is not clear. Our objective was to investigate demographic, temporal and climatic factors associated with carriage of antimicrobial resistant Escherichia coli in raccoons and the environment. We collected samples from raccoon paws and feces and from soil, manure pit and dumpsters on five swine farms and five conservation areas in Ontario, Canada once every five weeks from May to November, 2011-2013 and tested them for E. coli and susceptibility to 15 antimicrobials. Of samples testing positive for E. coli, resistance to ≥ 1 antimicrobials was detected in 7.4% (77/1044; 95% CI, 5.9-9.1) of raccoon fecal samples, 6.3% (23/365; 95% CI, 4.0-9.3) of paw samples, 9.6% (121/1260; 8.0-11.4) of soil samples, 57.4% (31/54; 95% CI, 43.2-70.8) of manure pit samples, and 13.8% (4/29; 95% CI, 3.9-31.7) of dumpster samples. Using univariable logistic regression, there was no significant difference in the occurrence of resistant E. coli in raccoon feces on conservation areas versus farms; however, E. coli isolates resistant to ≥ 1 antimicrobials were significantly less likely to be detected from raccoon paw samples on swine farms than conservation areas and significantly more likely to be detected in soil samples from swine farms than conservation areas. Resistant phenotypes and genotypes that were absent from the swine farm environment were detected in raccoons from conservation areas, suggesting that conservation areas and swine farms may have different exposures to resistant bacteria. However, the similar resistance patterns and genes in E. coli from raccoon fecal and environmental samples from the same location types suggest that resistant bacteria may be exchanged between raccoons and their environment.

Indexed as

Drug Resistance, BacterialAnimalsEscherichia coliEscherichia coli InfectionsFarmsFecesForelimbGenotypeHindlimbManureMicrobial Sensitivity TestsOntarioRaccoonsSeasonsSoil MicrobiologySwineManure

Identifiers

PMID27829035
PMCPMC5102455
OpenAlexW2554640811

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.