ArticleJournal of applied microbiology2022
Metaphylactic antimicrobial effects on occurrences of antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella enterica, Escherichia coli and Enterococcus spp. measured longitudinally from feedlot arrival to harvest in high-risk beef cattle.
Article in Journal of 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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Antimicrobial usage in broiler poultry farms in Zambia.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- Bioprospecting of desert actinobacteria with special emphases on griseoviridin, mitomycin C and a new bacterial metabolite producing Streptomyces sp. PU-KB10-4.BMC microbiology · 2023Article
- Weaning transition, but not the administration of probiotic candidateFrontiers in veterinary science · 2023Article
- Metaphylactic antimicrobial effects on occurrences of antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella enterica, Escherichia coli and Enterococcus spp. measured longitudinally from feedlot arrival to harvest in high-risk beef cattle.Journal of applied microbiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimsOur objective was to determine how injectable antimicrobials affected populations of Salmonella enterica, Escherichia coli and Enterococcus spp. in feedlot cattle. METHODS AND
resultsTwo arrival date blocks of high-risk crossbred beef cattle (n = 249; mean BW = 244 kg) were randomly assigned one of four antimicrobial treatments administered on day 0: sterile saline control (CON), tulathromycin (TUL), ceftiofur (CEF) or florfenicol (FLR). Faecal samples were collected on days 0, 28, 56, 112, 182 and study end (day 252 for block 1 and day 242 for block 2). Hide swabs and subiliac lymph nodes were collected the day before and the day of harvest. Samples were cultured for antimicrobial-resistant Salmonella, Escherichia coli and Enterococcus spp. The effect of treatment varied by day across all targeted bacterial populations (p ≤ 0.01) except total E. coli. Total E. coli counts were greatest on days 112, 182 and study end (p ≤ 0.01). Tulathromycin resulted in greater counts and prevalence of Salmonella from faeces than CON at study end (p ≤ 0.01). Tulathromycin and CEF yielded greater Salmonella hide prevalence and greater counts of 128ERY
conclusionsAntimicrobial resistance (AMR) in feedlot cattle is not caused solely by using a metaphylactic antimicrobial on arrival, but more likely a multitude of environmental and management factors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.