Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31679543›Full record

ReviewEpidemiology and infection2019

Ceftiofur-resistant

Carolee Carson, Xian-Zhi Li, Agnes Agunos, Daleen Loest, Brennan Chapman, Rita Finley, Manisha Mehrotra, Lauren M Sherk, Réjean Gaumond, Rebecca Irwin

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Epidemiology and infection, 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
3.9field-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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Carbapenem-resistantEpidemiology and infection · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles ofFoodborne pathogens and disease · 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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Carolee CarsonCentre for Food-borne, Environmental and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Public Health Agency of Canada, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2712-0961
Xian-Zhi LiVeterinary Drugs Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-1722-3254
Agnes AgunosCentre for Food-borne, Environmental and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Public Health Agency of Canada, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Daleen LoestCentre for Food-borne, Environmental and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Public Health Agency of Canada, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Brennan ChapmanNational Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Rita FinleyCentre for Food-borne, Environmental and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Public Health Agency of Canada, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Manisha MehrotraVeterinary Drugs Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Lauren M SherkUniversity of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Réjean GaumondMarket and Industry Services Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Rebecca IrwinCentre for Food-borne, Environmental and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Public Health Agency of Canada, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Public Health Agency of Canada · CAHealth Canada · CAAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada · CAUniversity of Guelph · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Codex published the 'Guidelines for Risk Analysis of Foodborne Antimicrobial Resistance' to standardise the approach for evaluating risk posed by foodborne antimicrobial-resistant bacteria. One of the first steps in the guidelines is to compile a risk profile, which provides the current state of knowledge regarding a food safety issue, describes risk management options and recommends next steps. In Canada, ceftiofur/ceftriaxone-resistant Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Heidelberg from poultry was identified as an antimicrobial resistance (AMR) food safety issue. The first objective of this article was to contextualise this food safety issue, using the risk profile format of the Codex Guidelines. A second objective was to evaluate the applicability of the Codex Guidelines. This risk profile indicated that ceftiofur/ceftriaxone-resistant S. Heidelberg (CSH) was commonly isolated from poultry and was associated with severe disease in humans. Ceftiofur use in poultry hatcheries temporally mirrored the prevalence of CSH from poultry meat at retail and from people with salmonellosis. The evidence was sufficient to indicate the need for risk management options, such as restricting the use of ceftiofur in poultry. The Codex Guidelines provided a useful approach to summarise data for decision-makers to evaluate an AMR food safety issue.

Indexed as

Drug Resistance, BacterialFood MicrobiologyAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsCanadaCeftriaxoneCephalosporinsHumansMicrobial Sensitivity TestsPoultryPractice Guidelines as TopicRisk AssessmentRisk ManagementSalmonella entericaSalmonella Food PoisoningAnti-Bacterial AgentsceftiofurCeftriaxoneCephalosporinsAntimicrobial resistance in agricultural settingsfood-borne zoonosespublic healthrisk assessmentSalmonella

Identifiers

PMID31679543
PMCPMC6836576
OpenAlexW2984757723

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.