Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35388505›Full record

ArticleLetters in applied microbiology2022

Multicentre evaluation of a selective isolation protocol for detection of mcr-positive E. coli and Salmonella spp. in food-producing animals and meat.

Agnès Perrin-Guyomard, Sophie A Granier, Jannice Schau Slettemeås, Muna Anjum, Luke Randall, Manal AbuOun, Natalie Pauly, Alexandra Irrgang, Jens Andre Hammerl, Jette Sejer Kjeldgaard and 10 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Letters in applied microbiology, 2022. 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
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 49% 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. First Known Report ofInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  5. High Fecal Prevalence ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    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

20 authors at 12 institutions in 9 countries.

Agnès Perrin-GuyomardFrench Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES), Fougères Laboratory, Fougères, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4078-188X
Sophie A GranierFrench Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES), Fougères Laboratory, Fougères, France.
Jannice Schau SlettemeåsNorwegian Veterinary Institute, Oslo, Norway.
Muna AnjumAnimal and Plant Health Agency, Addlestone, UK.
Luke RandallAnimal and Plant Health Agency, Addlestone, UK.
Manal AbuOunAnimal and Plant Health Agency, Addlestone, UK.
Natalie PaulyGerman Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Berlin, Germany.
Alexandra IrrgangGerman Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Berlin, Germany.
Jens Andre HammerlGerman Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Berlin, Germany.
Jette Sejer KjeldgaardTechnical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark.
Anette HammerumStatens Serum Institut, Kobenhavn, Denmark.
Alessia FrancoIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale del Lazio e della Toscana, Lazio, Italy.
Magdalena SkarżyńskaNational Veterinary Research Institute, Pulawy, Poland.
Ewelina KamińskaNational Veterinary Research Institute, Pulawy, Poland.
Dariusz WasylNational Veterinary Research Institute, Pulawy, Poland.
Cindy DierikxNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands.
Stefan BörjessonNational Veterinary Institute (SVA), Sweden and Public Health Agency of Sweden, Uppsala, Sweden.
Yvon GeurtsWageningen Bioveterinary Research, Lelystad, the Netherlands.
Marisa HaenniLyon University - French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES), Lyon Laboratory, Lyon, France.
Kees VeldmanWageningen Bioveterinary Research, Lelystad, the Netherlands.
Animal and Plant Health Agency · GBFederal Institute for Risk Assessment · DENational Veterinary Research Institute · PLCentre Hospitalier de Fougères · FRWageningen University & Research · NLAgence Nationale de Sécurité Sanitaire de l’Alimentation, de l’Environnement et du Travail · FRIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Regioni Lazio e Toscana · ITNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment · NLNorwegian Veterinary Institute · NOPublic Health Agency of Sweden · SEStatens Serum Institut · DKTechnical University of Denmark · DK

Funding

European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme 773830
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study was conducted to evaluate the performance of a screening protocol to detect and isolate mcr-positive Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. from animal caecal content and meat samples. We used a multicentre approach involving 12 laboratories from nine European countries. All participants applied the same methodology combining a multiplex PCR performed on DNA extracted from a pre-enrichment step, followed by a selective culture step on three commercially available chromogenic agar plates. The test panel was composed of two negative samples and four samples artificially contaminated with E. coli and Salmonella spp. respectively harbouring mcr-1 or mcr-3 and mcr-4 or mcr-5 genes. PCR screening resulted in a specificity of 100% and a sensitivity of 83%. Sensitivity of each agar medium to detect mcr-positive colistin-resistant E. coli or Salmonella spp. strains was 86% for CHROMID

Indexed as

Escherichia coliMeatSalmonellaAgarAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsColistinDrug Resistance, BacterialEscherichia coli ProteinsMicrobial Sensitivity TestsPlasmidsAgarAnti-Bacterial AgentsColistinEscherichia coli ProteinsMCR-1 protein, E colianimalsColistin resistanceE. colimcrSalmonellascreening

Identifiers

PMID35388505
PMCPMC9544698
OpenAlexW4224235401

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.