ArticleMicroorganisms2021
Comparison of Phenotypical Antimicrobial Resistance between Clinical and Non-Clinical
Article in Microorganisms, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Phenotypic antimicrobial resistance patterns of Escherichia coli isolates from healthy chicken and turkey flocks in Hungary differ across poultry production systems.Poultry science · 2026Article
- Antibiotic susceptibility and resistance genes in Escherichia coli from broilers reared in a low-antibiotic-use production system.Poultry science · 2026Article
- Prevalence and patterns of antimicrobial resistance inJournal of advanced veterinary and animal research · 2026Article
- Implementation of antimicrobial stewardship programmes in private healthcare settings in Africa: A scoping review.Health SA = SA Gesondheid · 2023Article
- Comparison of Consumption Data and Phenotypical Antimicrobial Resistance inAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
12 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Livestock data on antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are commonly collected from bacterial populations of clinical and non-clinical isolates. In contrast to data on non-clinical isolates from livestock, data on clinical isolates are not harmonized in Europe. The Normalized Resistance Interpretation (NRI) method was applied to overcome the lack of harmonization of laboratory methods and interpretation rules between monitoring systems. Statistical analyses were performed to identify associations between the isolate type (clinical vs. non-clinical) and resistance to four antimicrobials (ampicillin, tetracycline, gentamicin, and nalidixic acid) per animal category in Germany and France. Additional statistical analyses comparing clinical and non-clinical isolates were performed with the available data on the same antimicrobial panel and animal categories from the UK and Norway. Higher resistance prevalence was found in clinical isolates compared to non-clinical isolates from calves to all antimicrobials included in Germany and France. It was also found for gentamicin in broilers from France. In contrast, in broilers and turkeys from Germany and France and in broilers from the UK, a higher resistance level to ampicillin and tetracycline in non-clinical isolates was encountered. This was also found in resistance to gentamicin in isolates from turkeys in Germany. Resistance differed within countries and across years, which was partially in line with differences in antimicrobial use patterns. Differences in AMR between clinical and non-clinical isolates of
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.