ReviewComparative medicine2018
Comparative Review of Antimicrobial Resistance in Humans and Nonhuman Primates.
Review in Comparative medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Phenotypic and Genotype Patterns of Antimicrobial Resistance in Non-Human Primates: An Overlooked "One Health" Concern.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- An Epidemiologic Study of Bacterial Culture and Antibiotic Susceptibility Analyses in Captive Macaques and Marmosets at the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2024Article
- Association of Primate Veterinarians' Guidelines for the Judicious Use of Antimicrobials.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) presents serious threats to human and animal health. Although AMR of pathogens is often evaluated independently between humans and animals, comparative analysis of AMR between humans and animals is necessary for zoonotic pathogens. Major surveillance systems monitor AMR of zoonotic pathogens in humans and food animals, but comprehensive AMR data in veterinary medicine is not diligently monitored for most animal species with which humans commonly contact, including NHP. The objective of this review is to provide a complete report of the prevalences of AMR among zoonotic bacteria that present the greatest threats to NHP, occupational, and public health. High prevalences of AMR exist among Shigella, Campylobacter, and Yersinia, including resistance to antimicrobials important to public health, such as macrolides. Despite improvements in regulations, standards, policies, practices, and zoonotic awareness, occupational exposures to and illnesses due to zoonotic pathogens continue to be reported and, given the documented prevalences of AMR, constitute an occupational and public health risk. However, published literature is sparse, thus indicating the need for veterinarians to proactively monitor AMR in dangerous zoonotic bacteria, to enable veterinarians to make more informed decisions to maximize antimicrobial therapy and minimize occupational risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29663937PMC5897968W2886156088What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.