Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33829137›Full record

ArticleOne health outlook2020

Antimicrobial drug resistant non-typhoidal

Amy Nelson, Sulochana Manandhar, Juliana Ruzante, Arrogya Gywali, Bimala Dhakal, Santosh Dulal, Rupendra Chaulagai, Sameer M Dixit

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in One health outlook, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The rise of non-typhoidalFrontiers in microbiology · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Amy NelsonRTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC USA.
Sulochana ManandharCenter for Molecular Dynamics Nepal (CMDN), Kathmandu, Nepal.
Juliana RuzanteRTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC USA.
Arrogya GywaliCenter for Molecular Dynamics Nepal (CMDN), Kathmandu, Nepal.
Bimala DhakalCenter for Molecular Dynamics Nepal (CMDN), Kathmandu, Nepal.
Santosh DulalCenter for Molecular Dynamics Nepal (CMDN), Kathmandu, Nepal.
Rupendra ChaulagaiCenter for Molecular Dynamics Nepal (CMDN), Kathmandu, Nepal.
Sameer M DixitCenter for Molecular Dynamics Nepal (CMDN), Kathmandu, Nepal.ORCID 0000-0003-3111-2120
Center for Molecular Dynamics - Nepal · NPRTI International · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAntimicrobial resistance (AMR) among bacterial pathogens is a fast-growing public health concern. AMR in non-typhoidal

methodsTaking one health approach, a cross-sectional study was carried out in Chitwan district of Nepal between May and October 2017. Various environmental samples viz. farm litter, feed, water, poultry faeces, vehicle swabs, farm swabs from 12 broiler poultry farms and various sections of poultry carcasses from 21 slaughter houses were aseptically collected. These were microbiologically assessed for the presence of NTS serovars and their phenotypic and genotypic indicators of antimicrobial resistance. The poultry farmers were also briefly interviewed regarding their basic biosecurity related knowledge and practices before collecting the environmental samples.

resultsOverall, of total environmental samples collected, 50% (31/62) tested positive for NTS serovars with environmental swabs (70%, 8/12) being the most culture positive sample types. Similarly, of 159 tissue samples collected from 24 carcasses, 79% (126/159) were culture positive for NTS serovars. Nearly 97% (153/157) of isolates showed antimicrobial resistance to tetracycline, while 11% (17/157) to ciprofloxacin and 5% (8/157) of isolates were resistant against azithromycin. All 157 isolates were sensitive to meropenem. In terms of AMR genes, tetA (83%, 131/157), QrnS (40%,64/157), mefA (8%, 13/157) and VIM-1 (0.6%, 1/157) were detected in the isolates that corresponded to the AMR to tetracycline, ciprofloxacin, azithromycin and meropenem respectively. In farmers interview, only 42% (5/12) of farmers mentioned of using basic biosecurity measures such as applying lime powder around the farm; 84% (10/12) of farmers reported vaccinating their birds with some vaccine and 75% (9/12) of farmers used various antimicrobials prophylactically such as neomycin (33%, 4/12), colistin (33%, 4/12), furaltadone (33%, 4/12), doxycycline (25%, 3/12), sulfatrimethoprim (25%, 3/12) and tylosin (16%, 2/12).

conclusionsThis study revealed gross contamination of farm environment and subsequent poultry meat samples with NTS serovars that were resistant to several clinically important antimicrobials. Further, inadequacy of even basic biosecurity measures and frequent prophylactic use of antimicrobials in the commercial poultry farms was observed. This reinforces an urgent need to raise awareness and implement proper biosecurity approaches from farms to slaughter houses in order to reduce the burden of NTS contamination of surrounding environment and poultry products. Further, high prevalence AMR among NTS isolates also underscores the need to strengthen the policies to prevent the rampant use of clinically used human antimicrobials in poultry sector.

Indexed as

Antimicrobial resistanceEnvironmentNepalNon-typhoidal Salmonella serovarsOne healthPoultry

Identifiers

PMID33829137
PMCPMC7993451
OpenAlexW3089750389

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.