ArticleTierarztliche Praxis. Ausgabe G, Grosstiere/Nutztiere2020
[Antimicrobial resistance in E. coli from different cattle populations in Germany].
Article in Tierarztliche Praxis. Ausgabe G, Grosstiere/Nutztiere, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surveillance of Antimicrobial Resistance ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Antimicrobial consumption and resistance in bacteria from humans and food-producing animals: Fourth joint inter-agency report on integrated analysis of antimicrobial agent consumption and occurrence of antimicrobial resistance in bacteria from humans and food-producing animals in the EU/EEA JIACRA IV - 2019-2021.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2024Article
- Transmission of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) during animal transport.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2022Article
- Antimicrobial Susceptibility of EnterotoxigenicAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
- Comparison of approaches for source attribution of ESBL-producing Escherichia coli in Germany.PloS one · 2022Article
- Antimicrobial Resistance, Serologic and Molecular Characterization ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Prevalence and Risk Factors for ESBL/AmpC-Microorganisms · 2021Article
- Comparison of Phenotypical Antimicrobial Resistance between Clinical and Non-ClinicalMicroorganisms · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIt was the objective of this study to describe and compare antimicrobial resistance in clinical and non-clinical MATERIAL AND
methodsFor this, the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) of antimicrobials against clinical and non-clinical
resultsA total of 5127 isolates was included in the analysis. The highest resistance rates were observed in isolates from calves with diarrhea, followed by non-clinical isolates from cattle slaughtered at an age under 1 year. The lowest resistance rates were encountered in CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Resistance rates to the critically important antimicrobials fluoroquinolones and 3rd generation cephalosporins were high in isolates from mastitis samples and in isolates from calves with diarrhea. This may be linked to the high use of these substances in dairy cows and the feeding of wastemilk from treated cows to calves, exposing the latter to drug residues and resistant bacteria from the milk. The use of these substances has to be reduced to a minimum in order to avoid further spread of this kind of resistance in the cattle population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.