Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30753489›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy2019

Dynamics of faecal shedding of ESBL- or AmpC-producing Escherichia coli on dairy farms.

Joost Hordijk, Egil A J Fischer, Tine van Werven, Steven Sietsma, Liese Van Gompel, Arjen J Timmerman, Mirlin P Spaninks, Dick J J Heederik, Mirjam Nielen, Jaap A Wagenaar and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Within-farm dynamics of ESBL-producingFrontiers in microbiology · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Drivers of ESBL-producingOne health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2021
    Article
  19. 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

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Joost HordijkDepartment of Infectious Diseases and Immunology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Egil A J FischerDepartment of Farm Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Tine van WervenDepartment of Farm Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Steven SietsmaUniversity Farm Animal Practice (ULP), Harmelen, The Netherlands.
Liese Van GompelInstitute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Arjen J TimmermanDepartment of Infectious Diseases and Immunology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Mirlin P SpaninksDepartment of Farm Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Dick J J HeederikInstitute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Mirjam NielenDepartment of Farm Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Jaap A WagenaarDepartment of Infectious Diseases and Immunology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Arjan StegemanDepartment of Farm Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Utrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo explore the dynamics of faecal ESBL/AmpC shedding in dairy cattle and farmers, a study was conducted to examine changes in shedding by individual animals, as well as environmental exposure, and to study the association between antimicrobial use (AMU) and ESBL/AmpC shedding.

methodsThe study comprised a cross-sectional survey of 20 farms and a 1 year follow-up of 10 farms. Faecal samples were cultured by both direct inoculation on MacConkey agar + 1 mg/L cefotaxime (MC+) and enrichment in LB-broth + 1 mg/L cefotaxime with subsequent inoculation on MC+. Dust samples were collected using electrostatic dustfall collectors (EDCs). Human faecal samples were collected by the farmers. Presence of ESBL/AmpC genes was screened for by PCR and sequencing. Using mixed effects logistic regression, ORs were determined and population-attributable fractions (PAFs) calculated subsequently.

resultsIn Phase 1, 8/20 farms were positive for ESBL/AmpC and, with 2 negative farms, were selected for Phase 2. Transient shedding of dominant allele variants was observed in the animals. EDCs and human faecal samples did not reflect what was observed in the animals. AMU was related to shedding of ESBLs in the next sampling moment [OR 14.6 (95% CI 3.0-80.0)] and the PAF of AMU was 0.36 (95% CI 0.08-0.77). Calves fed with colostrum from cows on dry-off therapy was not a risk factor [OR 1.7 (95% CI 0.7-4.9, P = 0.28)].

conclusionsThe presence of ESBL/AmpC could only be partly explained by AMU. No link was shown between shedding in cattle and humans or the environment. Interventions should focus on prevention of introduction.

Indexed as

Bacterial SheddingAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacterial Proteinsbeta-LactamasesCattleCross-Sectional StudiesDrug Resistance, BacterialEscherichia coliFecesFemaleGene Expression Regulation, BacterialGenotypeAmpC beta-lactamasesAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacterial Proteinsbeta-Lactamases

Identifiers

PMID30753489
PMCPMC6524482
OpenAlexW2912224300

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.