Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30665443›Full record

ArticleActa veterinaria Scandinavica2019

Antimicrobial resistance of Escherichia coli and Enterococcus spp. isolated from Estonian cattle and swine from 2010 to 2015.

Birgit Aasmäe, Liidia Häkkinen, Tanel Kaart, Piret Kalmus

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta veterinaria Scandinavica, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Antimicrobial Resistance in Indicator MicroorganismsAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Antimicrobial Resistance in CommensalAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Antimicrobial Susceptibility ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Extended Spectrum β-Lactamase (ESBL) ProducingAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    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

4 authors.

Birgit AasmäeEstonian University of Life Sciences, Kreutzwaldi 62, Tartu, Estonia. birgit.aasmae@emu.ee.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2206-7751
Liidia HäkkinenDepartment of Bacteriology-Pathology, Estonian Veterinary and Food Laboratory, Kreutzwaldi 30, Tartu, Estonia.
Tanel KaartEstonian University of Life Sciences, Kreutzwaldi 62, Tartu, Estonia.
Piret KalmusEstonian University of Life Sciences, Kreutzwaldi 62, Tartu, Estonia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe prevalence of resistant Escherichia coli and Enterococcus spp. in food-producing animals has increased worldwide. The objective of the study was to investigate the occurrence of antimicrobial resistance of Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus faecalis isolated from healthy and diseased swine and cattle in Estonia. Clinical specimen and faecal samples were collected during 2010 to 2015. The in vitro antimicrobial susceptibility was determined using the microdilution method.

resultsThe most prevalent resistance of E. coli isolates from clinically healthy swine was observed against streptomycin (39.2%), tetracycline (32.5%) and sulfamethoxazole (30.0%), whereas in clinically healthy cattle, the resistance was the highest against aminoglycosides (7.0-8.8%) and tetracycline (7.0%). The E. coli isolates from clinically healthy swine showed significantly higher multidrug-resistance compared to isolates originated from clinically healthy cattle. E. coli isolates from diseased swine showed highest resistance to sulfamethoxazole (68.6%), tetracycline (60.2%) and streptomycin (54.6%). The proportion of resistant E. coli isolates from diseased cattle (clinical submissions) was highest to streptomycin (63.5%), sulfamethoxazole (60.3%) and tetracycline (58.8%). The proportion of multidrug-resistant isolates did not differ significantly between animal species. Among E. coli isolates, four strains representing AmpC phenotypes were found. One plasmid-encoded AmpC type β-lactamases producing E. coli from clinically healthy cattle was found to harbour the bla

conclusionsThe antimicrobial resistance of E. coli isolates was high in both Estonian swine and cattle. However, swine isolates, especially E. coli from healthy swine, had developed a higher level of resistance. The amount of multidrug-resistant E. coli isolates was also significantly higher in clinically healthy swine compared to that in cattle.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsCattleCattle DiseasesDrug Resistance, BacterialEnterococcus faecalisEnterococcus faeciumEscherichia coliEscherichia coli InfectionsEstoniaFemaleGram-Positive Bacterial InfectionsMaleMicrobial Sensitivity TestsSwineSwine DiseasesAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntimicrobial resistanceCattleE. coliEnterococciSwine

Identifiers

PMID30665443
PMCPMC6341677

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.