Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35497972›Full record

ArticleVeterinary world2022

Antimicrobial resistance of commensal

Dmitry A Makarov, Olga E Ivanova, Anastasia V Pomazkova, Maria A Egoreva, Olga V Prasolova, Sergey V Lenev, Maria A Gergel, Nataliya K Bukova, Sergey Yu Karabanov

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Veterinary world, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Development of an RT-LAMP Assay for DetectingDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Profiles of CommensalAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Antimicrobial Susceptibility Profiles of CommensalAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Occurrence of Antimicrobial-ResistantAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

9 authors.

Dmitry A MakarovDepartment of Food and Feed Safety, Federal State Budgetary Institution, The Russian State Center for Animal Feed and Drug Standardization and Quality (VGNKI), Moscow, Russia.
Olga E IvanovaDepartment of Biotechnology, Federal State Budgetary Institution, The Russian State Center for Animal Feed and Drug Standardization and Quality (VGNKI), Moscow, Russia.
Anastasia V PomazkovaDepartment of Biotechnology, Federal State Budgetary Institution, The Russian State Center for Animal Feed and Drug Standardization and Quality (VGNKI), Moscow, Russia.
Maria A EgorevaDepartment of Biotechnology, Federal State Budgetary Institution, The Russian State Center for Animal Feed and Drug Standardization and Quality (VGNKI), Moscow, Russia.
Olga V PrasolovaDepartment of Biotechnology, Federal State Budgetary Institution, The Russian State Center for Animal Feed and Drug Standardization and Quality (VGNKI), Moscow, Russia.
Sergey V LenevDepartment of Biotechnology, Federal State Budgetary Institution, The Russian State Center for Animal Feed and Drug Standardization and Quality (VGNKI), Moscow, Russia.
Maria A GergelDepartment of Immunobiological Drugs, Federal State Budgetary Institution, The Russian State Center for Animal Feed and Drug Standardization and Quality (VGNKI), Moscow, Russia.
Nataliya K BukovaTesting Centre, Federal State Budgetary Institution The Russian State Center for Animal Feed and Drug Standardization and Quality (VGNKI), Moscow, Russia.
Sergey Yu KarabanovDepartment of Experimental Clinic and Research Laboratory for Bioactive Substances of Animal Origin, V. M. Gorbatov Federal Research Center for Food Systems, Moscow, Russia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Aim: Although Materials and Methods: Samples of biomaterial were taken from chickens (n=187), cattle (n=155), pigs (n=49), turkeys (n=34), sheep (n=31), and ducks (n=31) raised at 28 farms in 15 regions of Russia. Isolates of Results: A difference of >10% was found between Conclusion: Differences in resistance between enterococci from different farm animals indicate that antimicrobial application is among the crucial factors determining the level of resistance. Conversely, resistance to rifampicin, erythromycin, tetracycline, and ciprofloxacin found in enterococci from farm animals in our study was notably also found in enterococci from wild animals and birds. Our results may be partly explained by the intrinsic resistance of

Indexed as

animalsantimicrobial resistanceenterococciEnterococcus faecalisEnterococcus faeciumlivestock

Identifiers

PMID35497972
PMCPMC9047118

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.