Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32746827›Full record

ArticleBMC veterinary research2020

Dogs as a source of Salmonella spp. in apparently healthy dogs in the Valencia Region. Could it be related with intestinal lactic acid bacteria?

E Bataller, E García-Romero, L Llobat, V Lizana, E Jiménez-Trigos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC veterinary research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Occurrence ofVeterinary world · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. A Familiar Outbreak of MonophasicPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Zoonotic potential and prevalence ofInfection ecology & epidemiology · 2021
    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

5 authors.

E BatallerResearch Group Microbiological Agents Associated with Animal Reproduction (PROVAGINBIO), Department of Animal Production and Health, Veterinary Public Health and Food Science and Technology (PASAPTA), Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad Cardenal Herrera-CEU, CEU Universities, Carrer Tirant lo Blanc 7, 46115 Alfara del Patriarca, València, Spain. esther.bataller@uchceu.es.
E García-RomeroGrupo Sanidad de Rumiantes, Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de Murcia, C/ Campus Universitario 7, 30100, Murcia, Spain.
L LlobatResearch Group Microbiological Agents Associated with Animal Reproduction (PROVAGINBIO), Department of Animal Production and Health, Veterinary Public Health and Food Science and Technology (PASAPTA), Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad Cardenal Herrera-CEU, CEU Universities, Carrer Tirant lo Blanc 7, 46115 Alfara del Patriarca, València, Spain.
V LizanaServicio de Análisis, Investigación, Gestión de Animales Silvestres (SAIGAS), Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad Cardenal Herrera-CEU, CEU Universities, C/Tirant lo Blanc 7, 46115, Alfara del Patriarca, Valencia, Spain.
E Jiménez-TrigosResearch Group Microbiological Agents Associated with Animal Reproduction (PROVAGINBIO), Department of Animal Production and Health, Veterinary Public Health and Food Science and Technology (PASAPTA), Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad Cardenal Herrera-CEU, CEU Universities, Carrer Tirant lo Blanc 7, 46115 Alfara del Patriarca, València, Spain. estrella.jimenez@uchceu.es.

Funding

Banco Santander (ES) FUSPBS-PPC 15/2016
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough salmonellosis is considered one of the most important food-borne zoonotic diseases in Europe, close contact between dogs and their owners can also be a potential source of Salmonella spp. for humans. This study assessed the prevalence and antimicrobial resistance of Salmonella spp. in apparently healthy dogs in the Valencian Region, eastern Spain. Moreover, a macroscopic comparison of lactic acid bacteria in both Salmonella-positive and Salmonella-negative dogs was carried out.

resultsOf a total of 325 dogs sampled, 6 (1.85%) were positive for Salmonella spp. with 3 different serotypes, Havana (3), Mikawasima (2) and monophasic Typhimurium (1). All isolates were susceptible to all antimicrobials tested except monophasic S. Typhimurium, which was resistant to ampicillin. Finally, macroscopic results revealed that lactic acid bacteria had higher heterogeneity in the Salmonella-negative dogs than in the Salmonella-positive dogs. Although the results in our study showed a low prevalence of Salmonella spp., raw food has been suggested as a risk factor for bacteria in dog faeces.

conclusionsPublic awareness campaigns on good hygiene practices, especially after handling canine faeces or raw food, are necessary. Furthermore, to reduce the potential transmission of bacteria, dogs should be fed food that has been properly cooked, as raw or undercooked food can be a source of zoonotic pathogens. Moreover, further studies must be performed to determine the relationship between lactic acid bacteria and Salmonella spp. in dog faeces.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsDogsDrug Resistance, BacterialFecesLactobacillalesMicrobial Sensitivity TestsPrevalenceSalmonellaSalmonella Infections, AnimalSerotypingSpainAnti-Bacterial AgentsDogPrevalenceRaw foodRisk factorsSalmonellaZoonosis

Identifiers

PMID32746827
PMCPMC7398315

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.