Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37577944›Full record

SynthesisEpidemiology and infection2023

Animal sources of antimicrobial-resistant bacterial infections in humans: a systematic review.

Christina Fastl, Helena C De Carvalho Ferreira, Sara Babo Martins, João Sucena Afonso, Carlotta di Bari, Narmada Venkateswaran, Sara Monteiro Pires, Lapo Mughini-Gras, Ben Huntington, Jonathan Rushton and 2 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Epidemiology and infection, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

12 authors.

Christina FastlGlobal Burden of Animal Diseases Programme, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8954-4204
Helena C De Carvalho FerreiraSocial sciences unit, Flanders Research Institute for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Merelbeke, Belgium.
Sara Babo MartinsGlobal Burden of Animal Diseases Programme, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
João Sucena AfonsoGlobal Burden of Animal Diseases Programme, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Carlotta di BariGlobal Burden of Animal Diseases Programme, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Narmada VenkateswaranGlobal Burden of Animal Diseases Programme, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Sara Monteiro PiresNational Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-7751-1509
Lapo Mughini-GrasCentre for Infectious Disease Control (CIb), National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5420-949X
Ben HuntingtonGlobal Burden of Animal Diseases Programme, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Jonathan RushtonGlobal Burden of Animal Diseases Programme, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
David PigottGlobal Burden of Animal Diseases Programme, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Brecht DevleesschauwerGlobal Burden of Animal Diseases Programme, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bacterial antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is among the leading global health challenges of the century. Animals and their products are known contributors to the human AMR burden, but the extent of this contribution is not clear. This systematic literature review aimed to identify studies investigating the direct impact of animal sources, defined as livestock, aquaculture, pets, and animal-based food, on human AMR. We searched four scientific databases and identified 31 relevant publications, including 12 risk assessments, 16 source attribution studies, and three other studies. Most studies were published between 2012 and 2022, and most came from Europe and North America, but we also identified five articles from South and South-East Asia. The studies differed in their methodologies, conceptual approaches (bottom-up, top-down, and complex), definitions of the AMR hazard and outcome, the number and type of sources they addressed, and the outcome measures they reported. The most frequently addressed animal source was chicken, followed by cattle and pigs. Most studies investigated bacteria-resistance combinations. Overall, studies on the direct contribution of animal sources of AMR are rare but increasing. More recent publications tailor their methodologies increasingly towards the AMR hazard as a whole, providing grounds for future research to build on.

Indexed as

Anti-Infective AgentsBacterial InfectionsAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacteriaCattleChickensDrug Resistance, BacterialHumansSwineAnti-Bacterial AgentsAnti-Infective Agentsantibiotic resistanceantimicrobial resistancehuman(s)infectious diseaserisk assessmentsource attribution

Identifiers

PMID37577944
PMCPMC10540179

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.