Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31477099›Full record

ArticleBMC veterinary research2019

Limited association between disinfectant use and either antibiotic or disinfectant susceptibility of Escherichia coli in both poultry and pig husbandry.

Helder Maertens, Koen De Reu, Evelyne Meyer, Els Van Coillie, Jeroen Dewulf

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC veterinary research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Biocide Susceptibility and Antimicrobial Resistance ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. CommensalAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

5 authors.

Helder MaertensFlanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO), Technology and Food Science Unit, Brusselsesteenweg 370, 9090, Melle, Belgium.
Koen De ReuFlanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO), Technology and Food Science Unit, Brusselsesteenweg 370, 9090, Melle, Belgium. Koen.DeReu@ilvo.vlaanderen.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8499-8995
Evelyne MeyerVeterinary Biochemistry Unit, Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology and Biochemistry, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820, Merelbeke, Belgium.
Els Van CoillieFlanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (ILVO), Technology and Food Science Unit, Brusselsesteenweg 370, 9090, Melle, Belgium.
Jeroen DewulfVeterinary Epidemiology Unit, Department of Reproduction, Obstetrics and Herd Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Salisburylaan 133, 9820, Merelbeke, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFarm disinfectants are widely used in primary production, but questions have been raised if their use can select for antimicrobial resistance. The present study examined the use of disinfectants in poultry and pig husbandry and its contribution to the antibiotic and disinfectant susceptibility of Escherichia coli (E. coli) strains obtained after cleaning and disinfection. On those field isolates antibiotic susceptibility was monitored and susceptibility to commonly used active components of farm disinfectants (i.e. glutaraldehyde, benzalkoniumchloride, formaldehyde, and a formulation of peracetic acid and hydrogen peroxide) was tested.

resultsThis study showed a high resistance prevalence (> 50%) for ampicillin, sulfamethoxazole, trimethoprim and tetracycline for both production animal categories, while for ciprofloxacin only a high resistance prevalence was found in broiler houses. Disinfectant susceptibility results were homogenously distributed within a very small concentration range. Furthermore, all E. coli strains were susceptible to in-use concentrations of formaldehyde, benzalkoniumchloride and a formulation of peracetic acid and hydrogen peroxide, indicating that the practical use of disinfectants did not select for disinfectant resistance. Moreover, the results showed no indications for the selection of antibiotic resistant bacteria through the use of disinfectants in agricultural environments.

conclusionOur study suggests that the proper use of disinfectants in agricultural environments does not promote antibiotic resistance nor reduce E. coli disinfectant susceptibility.

Indexed as

Drug Resistance, BacterialAnimal HusbandryAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsChickensData CollectionDisinfectantsEscherichia coliMicrobial Sensitivity TestsSurveys and QuestionnairesSwineAnti-Bacterial AgentsDisinfectantsAntibiotic resistanceBiocidal productsBroiler flocksDisinfectant susceptibilityDisinfectionE. coliPig herds

Identifiers

PMID31477099
PMCPMC6721165

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.