Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35290866›Full record

SynthesisEnvironment international2022

Systematic review of wastewater surveillance of antimicrobial resistance in human populations.

K K Chau, L Barker, E P Budgell, K D Vihta, N Sims, B Kasprzyk-Hordern, E Harriss, D W Crook, D S Read, A S Walker and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Environment international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

59 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 122 citations in OpenAlex.

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

11 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

K K ChauNuffield Department of Medicine, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU, United Kingdom. Electronic address: kevin.chau@ndm.ox.ac.uk.
L BarkerNuffield Department of Medicine, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU, United Kingdom. Electronic address: leanne.barker@warwick.ac.uk.
E P BudgellNuffield Department of Medicine, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU, United Kingdom. Electronic address: eric.budgell@ndm.ox.ac.uk.
K D VihtaNuffield Department of Medicine, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU, United Kingdom. Electronic address: karina-doris.vihta@eng.ox.ac.uk.
N SimsDepartment of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, United Kingdom. Electronic address: nns31@bath.ac.uk.
B Kasprzyk-HordernDepartment of Chemistry, Faculty of Science, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, United Kingdom. Electronic address: bkh20@bath.ac.uk.
E HarrissBodleian Healthcare Libraries, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 9DU, United Kingdom. Electronic address: eli.harriss@bodleian.ox.ac.uk.
D W CrookNuffield Department of Medicine, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU, United Kingdom; Department of Microbiology/Infectious Diseases, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU, United Kingdom. Electronic address: derrick.crook@ndcls.ox.ac.uk.
D S ReadUK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wallingford OX10 8BB, United Kingdom. Electronic address: dasr@ceh.ac.uk.
A S WalkerNuffield Department of Medicine, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU, United Kingdom; NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford OX4 2PG, United Kingdom. Electronic address: sarah.walker@ndm.ox.ac.uk.
N StoesserNuffield Department of Medicine, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU, United Kingdom; Department of Microbiology/Infectious Diseases, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU, United Kingdom. Electronic address: nicole.stoesser@ndm.ox.ac.uk.
John Radcliffe Hospital · GBUniversity of Bath · GBBodle Technologies (United Kingdom) · GBOxford BioMedica (United Kingdom) · GBUK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Department of Health NIHR200915MRF_ MRF-145-0004-TPG-AVISO
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe systematically reviewed studies using wastewater for AMR surveillance in human populations, to determine: (i) evidence of concordance between wastewater-human AMR prevalence estimates, and (ii) methodological approaches which optimised identifying such an association, and which could be recommended as standard. We used Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) to quantify concordance between AMR prevalence estimates in wastewater and human compartments (where CCC = 1 reflects perfect concordance), and logistic regression to identify study features (e.g. sampling methods) associated with high agreement studies (defined as >70% of within-study wastewater-human AMR prevalence comparisons within ±10%).

resultsOf 8,867 records and 441 full-text methods reviewed, 33 studies were included. AMR prevalence data was extractable from 24 studies conducting phenotypic-only (n = 7), genotypic-only (n = 1) or combined (n = 16) AMR detection. Overall concordance of wastewater-human AMR prevalence estimates was reasonably high for both phenotypic (CCC = 0.85 [95% CI 0.8-0.89]) and genotypic approaches (CCC = 0.88 (95% CI 0.84-0.9)) despite diverse study designs, bacterial species investigated and phenotypic/genotypic targets. No significant relationships between methodological approaches and high agreement studies were identified using logistic regression; however, this was limited by inconsistent reporting of study features, significant heterogeneity in approaches and limited sample size. Based on a secondary, descriptive synthesis, studies conducting composite sampling of wastewater influent, longitudinal sampling >12 months, and time-/location-matched sampling of wastewater and human compartments generally had higher agreement.

conclusionWastewater-based surveillance of AMR appears promising, with high overall concordance between wastewater and human AMR prevalence estimates in studies irrespective of heterogenous approaches. However, our review suggests future work would benefit from: time-/location-matched sampling of wastewater and human populations, composite sampling of influent, and sampling >12 months for longitudinal studies. Further research and clear and consistent reporting of study methods is required to identify optimal practice.

Indexed as

Drug Resistance, BacterialWastewaterAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacteriaHumansWastewater-Based Epidemiological MonitoringAnti-Bacterial AgentsWastewaterAMREpidemiologySewageSurveillanceWastewater

Identifiers

PMID35290866
PMCPMC8960996
OpenAlexW4226089425

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.