Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30459619›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2018

Similar Gastro-Intestinal Exposure to Florfenicol After Oral or Intramuscular Administration in Pigs, Leading to Resistance Selection in Commensal

Joren De Smet, Filip Boyen, Siska Croubels, Geertrui Rasschaert, Freddy Haesebrouck, Patrick De Backer, Mathias Devreese

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2018. 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
1.4field-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, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Antimicrobial resistance in genericThe Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne · 2024
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Intramuscular injection of tetracycline decreased gut microbial diversity in mouse.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2020
    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 1 institution in 1 country.

Joren De SmetDepartment of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Biochemistry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium.
Filip BoyenDepartment of Pathology, Bacteriology and Poultry Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium.
Siska CroubelsDepartment of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Biochemistry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium.
Geertrui RasschaertTechnology and Food Science Unit, Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Melle, Belgium.
Freddy HaesebrouckDepartment of Pathology, Bacteriology and Poultry Diseases, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium.
Patrick De BackerDepartment of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Biochemistry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium.
Mathias DevreeseDepartment of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Biochemistry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Merelbeke, Belgium.
Ghent University · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Florfenicol, which is licensed for veterinary use only, proves to be a potent antimicrobial for treatment of respiratory disease. However, the subsequent exposure of the gut microbiota to florfenicol is not well described. Hence, the effect of various administration protocols on both plasma and gastro-intestinal florfenicol concentrations in pigs was evaluated. In field situations were simulated by application of different administration routes and dosages [single oral bolus at 10 or 5 mg/kg body weight (BW), medicated feed at 10 or 5 mg/kg BW and intramuscular injections at 15 or 30 mg/kg BW]. After intramuscular administration of 30 mg florfenicol/kg BW, gastro-intestinal concentrations of florfenicol, quantified 10 h after the last administration, were significantly elevated in comparison with the other treatment groups and ranging between 31.5 and 285.8 μg/g over the different gut segments. For the other treatment groups, the influence of dose and administration route was not significantly different. Bacteriological analysis of the fecal samples from the animals at the start of the experiment, demonstrated the presence of both florfenicol susceptible (with minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) values of 2-16 μg/mL) and florfenicol resistant (MIC ≥ 256 μg/mL)

Indexed as

administration routeEscherichia coliflorfenicolintestinal concentrationresistance selection

Identifiers

PMID30459619
PMCPMC6232271
OpenAlexW2900378413

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.