Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27829415›Full record

ArticleBMC veterinary research2016

In vitro susceptibility of four antimicrobials against Riemerella anatipestifer isolates: a comparison of minimum inhibitory concentrations and mutant prevention concentrations for ceftiofur, cefquinome, florfenicol, and tilmicosin.

Yafei Li, Yanan Zhang, Huanzhong Ding, Xian Mei, Wei Liu, Jiaxiong Zeng, Zhenling Zeng

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC veterinary research, 2016. 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
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Profiles ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  2. Characterization ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Yafei LiGuangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Veterinary Pharmaceutics Development and Safety Evaluation, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, 510642, People's Republic of China.
Yanan ZhangGuangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Veterinary Pharmaceutics Development and Safety Evaluation, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, 510642, People's Republic of China.
Huanzhong DingGuangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Veterinary Pharmaceutics Development and Safety Evaluation, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, 510642, People's Republic of China.
Xian MeiGuangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Veterinary Pharmaceutics Development and Safety Evaluation, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, 510642, People's Republic of China.
Wei LiuGuangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Veterinary Pharmaceutics Development and Safety Evaluation, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, 510642, People's Republic of China.
Jiaxiong ZengGuangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Veterinary Pharmaceutics Development and Safety Evaluation, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, 510642, People's Republic of China.
Zhenling ZengGuangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Veterinary Pharmaceutics Development and Safety Evaluation, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, 510642, People's Republic of China. zlzeng@scau.edu.cn.
South China Agricultural University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMutant prevention concentration (MPC) is an alternative pharmacodynamic parameter that has been used to measure antimicrobial activity and represents the propensities of antimicrobial agents to select resistant mutants. The concentration range between minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and MPC is defined as mutant selection window (MSW). The MPC and MSW parameters represent the ability of antimicrobial agents to inhibit the bacterial mutants selected. This study was conducted to determine the MIC and MPC values of four antimicrobials including ceftiofur, cefquinome, florfenicol and tilmicosin against 105 Riemerella anatipestifer isolates.

resultsThe MIC

conclusionBased on the MSW theory, the hierarchy of these tested antimicrobial agents with respect to selecting resistant subpopulations was as follows: cefquinome > ceftiofur > tilmicosin > florfenicol. Cefquinome was the drug that presented the highest risk of selecting resistant mutant among the four antimicrobial agents.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsCephalosporinsDrug Resistance, BacterialDucksFlavobacteriaceae InfectionsGeeseMicrobial Sensitivity TestsMutationPoultry DiseasesRiemerellaThiamphenicolTylosinAnti-Bacterial AgentscefquinomeceftiofurCephalosporinsflorfenicolThiamphenicoltilmicosinTylosinMinimum inhibitory concentrationMutant prevention concentrationR. anatipestifer

Identifiers

PMID27829415
PMCPMC5103488
OpenAlexW2553632911

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.