Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28091338›Full record

ArticleEpidemiology and infection2017

Molecular epidemiological analysis to assess the influence of pet-ownership in the biodiversity of Staphylococcus aureus and MRSA in dog- and non-dog-owning healthy households.

J C VAN Balen, T Landers, E Nutt, A Dent, A E Hoet

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epidemiology and infection, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Molecular profiling of methicillin-resistantIranian journal of microbiology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Antimicrobial Resistance and Molecular Epidemiology ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  5. Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. The SCCVeterinary sciences · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Pet owner and vet interactions: exploring the drivers of AMR.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2018
    Article
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.

J C VAN BalenDepartment of Veterinary Preventive Medicine,College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University,Columbus,OH,USA.
T LandersCollege of Nursing, The Ohio State University,Columbus,OH,USA.
E NuttVeterinary Public Health Program,College of Public Health, The Ohio State University,Columbus,OH,USA.
A DentCollege of Nursing, The Ohio State University,Columbus,OH,USA.
A E HoetDepartment of Veterinary Preventive Medicine,College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University,Columbus,OH,USA.

Funding

The Ohio State University Center for clinical and Translational ScienceUL1TR001070 · NCATS · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI JACKSON, REBECCA D · 2013 to 2017
$22.6M
Impact of Pet Ownership on SA/MRSA Colonization in Children & FamiliesR03HD070633 · NICHD · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI HOET, ARMANDO E., LANDERS, TIMOTHY F · 2012 to 2013
$149k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001070NIAID NIH HHS HHSN272200700055CNICHD NIH HHS R03 HD070633
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It has been suggested that zoonotic transmission of Staphylococcus aureus (SA) and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) can occur between owners and their pets within the same household. However, the influence that pet-ownership could have in the biodiversity of SA/MRSA strains circulating among owners is not fully understood. The objective of this study was to perform a molecular epidemiological analysis to evaluate and compare the biodiversity of SA/MRSA strains in dog-owning and non-dog-owning healthy households within the same community. Antimicrobial resistance, SCCmec type, USA type and clonality were assessed. Overall, 33·1% (165/499) of human subjects carried SA and 2·8% (14/499) carried MRSA. Among dogs, 7·1% (8/113) carried SA but none were MRSA positive. No difference was detected in the diversity index of SA/MRSA pulsotypes between dog-owning and non-dog-owning households; but, a marked variation was still observed in the pulsotypes circulating in each type of household. Additionally, simultaneous carriage of the same SA pulsotype in owner(s) and dog was observed in 57% of households with positive humans and pets. These results demonstrate that dogs can indeed participate in the circulation of SA/MRSA pulsotypes within a home and that the presence of a pet does not seem to favour certain strains within their household.

Indexed as

Genetic VariationAdolescentAdultAnimalsCarrier StateChildChild, PreschoolDogsElectrophoresis, Gel, Pulsed-FieldFamily CharacteristicsHumansInfantMethicillin ResistanceMolecular EpidemiologyMolecular TypingOwnershipBiodiversityhouseholdmolecular epidemiologypet-ownershipStaphylococcus aureus

Identifiers

PMID28091338
PMCPMC9507835

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.