Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30204569›Full record

ArticleMicrobial drug resistance (Larchmont, N.Y.)2018

Antimicrobial Resistance in Commensal Escherichia coli Isolated from Pigs and Pork Derived from Farms Either Routinely Using or Not Using In-Feed Antimicrobials.

Kittitat Lugsomya, Jitrapa Yindee, Waree Niyomtham, Chanwit Tribuddharat, Padet Tummaruk, David J Hampson, Nuvee Prapasarakul

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microbial drug resistance (Larchmont, N.Y.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Effect of supplementing aBioscience of microbiota, food and health · 2026
    Article
  2. 2002-2022 Quinolone Resistance inVeterinary sciences · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Antimicrobial Resistance in CommensalAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  6. Molecular Characterisation of Antimicrobial Resistance inAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Occurrence ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Multidrug Resistance and Virulence Factors ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2020
    Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Kittitat Lugsomya1 Department of Veterinary Microbiology, Faculty of Veterinary Science, Chulalongkorn University , Bangkok, Thailand .
Jitrapa Yindee1 Department of Veterinary Microbiology, Faculty of Veterinary Science, Chulalongkorn University , Bangkok, Thailand .
Waree Niyomtham1 Department of Veterinary Microbiology, Faculty of Veterinary Science, Chulalongkorn University , Bangkok, Thailand .
Chanwit Tribuddharat2 Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University , Bangkok, Thailand .
Padet Tummaruk3 Department of Obstetrics Gynaecology and Reproduction, Faculty of Veterinary Science, Chulalongkorn University , Bangkok, Thailand .
David J Hampson4 School of Veterinary and Life Sciences, Murdoch University , Perth, Australia .
Nuvee Prapasarakul1 Department of Veterinary Microbiology, Faculty of Veterinary Science, Chulalongkorn University , Bangkok, Thailand .
Chulalongkorn University · THCity University of Hong Kong · HKSiriraj Hospital · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aims of this study were (i) to evaluate whether routine in-feed antimicrobial use in pigs or not resulted in differences in antimicrobial resistance (AMR) E. coli at different pig producing stages, and (ii) to determine whether resistant strains were presented in pig meat postslaughter. A total of 300 commensal E. coli isolates were obtained and examined for antibiograms, AMR genes, plasmid replicons, and molecular types. The isolates were from two farms either using (A) or not using in-feed antimicrobials (NA), sampled four times during the production cycle and once postslaughter. E. coli resistant to aminoglycosides containing aadA1, aadA2, and aadB and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing (ESBLP) E. coli containing bla

Indexed as

AnimalsAnti-Bacterial Agentsbeta-LactamasesDrug Resistance, BacterialEscherichia coliEscherichia coli InfectionsFarmsMicrobial Sensitivity TestsPlasmidsRed MeatRepliconSwineAnti-Bacterial Agentsbeta-Lactamasesantimicrobial resistanceEscherichia coliextended-spectrum beta-lactamese-producing Escherichia colilongitudinal studypig productionpork

Identifiers

PMID30204569
PMCPMC6154756
OpenAlexW2891708561

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.