Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34122661›Full record

ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2021

Ad hoc method for the assessment of animal diseases caused by bacteria resistant to antimicrobials.

EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW), Søren Saxmose Nielsen, Dominique Joseph Bicout, Paolo Calistri, Elisabetta Canali, Julian Ashley Drewe, Bruno Garin-Bastuji, Jose Luis Gonzales Rojas, Christian Gortazar Schmidt, Mette Herskin and 19 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

29 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW)
Søren Saxmose Nielsen
Dominique Joseph Bicout
Paolo Calistri
Elisabetta Canali
Julian Ashley Drewe
Bruno Garin-Bastuji
Jose Luis Gonzales Rojas
Christian Gortazar Schmidt
Mette Herskin
Virginie Michel
Miguel Angel Miranda Chueca
Barbara Padalino
Paolo Pasquali
Helen Clare Roberts
Liisa Helena Sihvonen
Hans Spoolder
Karl Stahl
Antonio Velarde
Arvo Viltrop
Christoph Winckler
Jeroen Dewulf
Luca Guardabassi
Friederike Hilbert
Rodolphe Mader
Peter Smith
Inmaculada Aznar
Francesca Baldinelli
Julio Alvarez
Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The European Commission requested EFSA assess antimicrobial-resistant bacteria responsible for animal transmissible diseases, with a view to listing such pathogens for European Union action. This Scientific Opinion addresses the ad hoc method developed: (i) to give a global state of play as regards resistant animal pathogens that cause transmissible animal diseases, (ii) to identify the most relevant bacteria in the EU and (iii) to summarise their actual or potential animal health impact, and to perform their assessment for being listed and categorised according to the criteria of Articles 7, 5, 9 and 8 within the Animal Health Law (AHL) framework. An extensive literature review is carried out to give the global state of play of selected resistant bacteria that constitute a threat to animal health (i). An expert judgement procedure, based on the outcome of the literature review, is applied to identify which among those bacteria subjected to the literature review are the 'most relevant' in the European Union (ii). Their animal health impact in the European Union and their assessment for being listed and categorised according to the AHL framework will follow the 'ad hoc method for the assessment on listing and categorisation of animal diseases within the framework of the Animal Health Law' that EFSA has developed in the past (iii). The assessment of (i) and (ii) is addressed in distinct scientific opinions that are published separately by animal species of interest (dogs and cats, horses, pigs, poultry, cattle, small ruminants, rabbits and aquatic animal species). The assessment of (iii) is addressed in distinct scientific opinions and published separately by the animal pathogen.

Indexed as

animal health lawanimal pathogensantimicrobial resistanceextensive literature reviewmethodology

Identifiers

PMID34122661
PMCPMC8173446
OpenAlexW3167281059

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
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.