Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36514172›Full record

ReviewJournal of animal science and biotechnology2022

Production systems and important antimicrobial resistant-pathogenic bacteria in poultry: a review.

Philip H W Mak, Muhammad Attiq Rehman, Elijah G Kiarie, Edward Topp, Moussa S Diarra

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of animal science and biotechnology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed
12.0field-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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 100 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. GlobalEnvironmental science and ecotechnology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. MitigatingMicroorganisms · 2026
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Identification of the Phenicol Efflux GeneInternational journal of microbiology · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Philip H W MakGuelph Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), Guelph, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7961-4237
Muhammad Attiq RehmanGuelph Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), Guelph, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2062-1969
Elijah G KiarieDepartment of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9752-8546
Edward ToppLondon Research and Development Center, AAFC, London, ON, Canada.
Moussa S DiarraGuelph Research and Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), Guelph, ON, Canada. moussa.diarra@agr.gc.ca.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada · CANational Association of Friendship Centres · CAUniversity of Guelph · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Economic losses and market constraints caused by bacterial diseases such as colibacillosis due to avian pathogenic Escherichia coli and necrotic enteritis due to Clostridium perfringens remain major problems for poultry producers, despite substantial efforts in prevention and control. Antibiotics have been used not only for the treatment and prevention of such diseases, but also for growth promotion. Consequently, these practices have been linked to the selection and spread of antimicrobial resistant bacteria which constitute a significant global threat to humans, animals, and the environment. To break down the antimicrobial resistance (AMR), poultry producers are restricting the antimicrobial use (AMU) while adopting the antibiotic-free (ABF) and organic production practices to satisfy consumers' demands. However, it is not well understood how ABF and organic poultry production practices influence AMR profiles in the poultry gut microbiome. Various Gram-negative (Salmonella enterica serovars, Campylobacter jejuni/coli, E. coli) and Gram-positive (Enterococcus spp., Staphylococcus spp. and C. perfringens) bacteria harboring multiple AMR determinants have been reported in poultry including organically- and ABF-raised chickens. In this review, we discussed major poultry production systems (conventional, ABF and organic) and their impacts on AMR in some potential pathogenic Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria which could allow identifying issues and opportunities to develop efficient and safe production practices in controlling pathogens.

Indexed as

Antibiotic-freeAntimicrobial resistanceConventional feedingOrganicPoultry

Identifiers

PMID36514172
PMCPMC9749270
OpenAlexW4311307349

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.