Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34340654›Full record

SynthesisBMC microbiology2021

Analysis of the assessment of antimicrobial susceptibility. Non-typhoid Salmonella in meat and meat products as model (systematic review).

Sandra M Rincón-Gamboa, Raúl A Poutou-Piñales, Ana K Carrascal-Camacho

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC microbiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Evidence-Based Intervention Framework Proposal forFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Genomic characterization ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2023
    Article
  4. Resistance and Pathogenicity ofVeterinary sciences · 2022
    Article
  5. Antimicrobial Resistance of Non-TyphoidFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sandra M Rincón-GamboaLaboratorio de Microbiología de Alimentos. Grupo de Biotecnología Ambiental e Industrial (GBAI), Departamento de Microbiología, Facultad de Ciencias, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá D.C., Colombia.
Raúl A Poutou-PiñalesLaboratorio Biotecnología Molecular. Grupo de Biotecnología Ambiental e Industrial (GBAI), Departamento de Microbiología, Facultad de Ciencias, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá D.C., Colombia. rpoutou@javeriana.edu.co.
Ana K Carrascal-CamachoLaboratorio de Microbiología de Alimentos. Grupo de Biotecnología Ambiental e Industrial (GBAI), Departamento de Microbiología, Facultad de Ciencias, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá D.C., Colombia.
Pontificia Universidad Javeriana · CO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe scientific publications of antimicrobial susceptibilities and resistance must be precise, with interpretations adjusted to the standard. In this frame, knowledge of antimicrobial resistance is fundamental in pathogenic microorganisms such as Salmonella spp., known for many annual deaths worldwide. The objective of this work was to compare the interpretation of standards, the concentrations, and the breakpoints, to study antimicrobial resistance in Non-Typhoidal Salmonella (NTS) isolated from beef, pork, and chicken meat, meat products, and propose additional considerations that improve the use and usefulness of published results.

resultsAfter refining the search based on meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 48 papers were selected. In 33 (68.8%) of them, the disc diffusion method was used, in 11 (22.9%) the MIC determination method, and in 4 (8.33%) were used both. In 24 (50%) of the articles, the selection of a different (correct) standard could have had an impact on the interpretation of antimicrobial susceptibility, which observed when considering three scenarios, i) comparison between the year of the isolation versus the implemented standard, ii) comparison between the year of submission versus implemented standard and iii) comparison between the year of publication versus implemented standard.

conclusionsThe most frequent scenario was the inadequate selection of standards, indicating that some studies had not ensured that applied standards kept in line with the date of isolation, date of publication and interpretation of susceptibilities. We proposed 2 years for standards use for resistance and multi-resistance interpretations. On the other hand, we invite researchers to publish their results in the shortest possible time, and editors and reviewers of scientific journals to prioritise these types of studies and verify the correspondence between the standard cited and the one used and the one to be taken into account.

Indexed as

Drug Resistance, BacterialAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsMeatMeat ProductsMicrobial Sensitivity TestsSalmonellaAnti-Bacterial AgentsMeat productsMultidrug resistanceNon-typhoidal SalmonellaStandard

Identifiers

PMID34340654
PMCPMC8328484
OpenAlexW3189896325

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.