ArticlePloS one2024
Treated and untreated cows housed side by side in tie-stalls and their respective risk of harboring E. coli resistant to antimicrobials.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- From clinics to sewers: leveraging environmental surveillance and whole genome sequencing to inform transmission of ESBL-Applied and environmental microbiology · 2026Article
- Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase (ESBL)-Producing E. coli in Livestock and Free-Roaming Wildlife: A Combined Phenotyping-Whole-Genome Sequencing One Health Approach.Transboundary and emerging diseases · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Parenteral antimicrobial treatment results in the excretion of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria. Dairy cows are commonly housed side by side in tie-stalls and often receive antimicrobial treatment. However, studies investigating treated cows as source of colonization of neighboring cows with resistant bacteria are scarce. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in cows (treated and untreated) in tie-stalls was investigated to assess their respective risks of carrying resistant bacteria. Furthermore, we analyzed associations of farm management with AMR. Case-control study: For isolation of indicator Escherichia (E.) coli, rectal swab samples were taken. Cows were sampled depending on treatment history and proximity to one another (cow A: recently treated parenterally; cow B: untreated, next to cow A; cow C: untreated, at considerable distance from all treated cows). Antimicrobial susceptibility was tested by microdilution. Associations of AMR with exposure to cow A, treatments, and management were analyzed using generalized mixed-effects logistic models. Susceptibility data on 571 isolates from 131 dairy farms were obtained. Almost no difference in proportions of resistant E. coli was observed between cows B and C (B: 53.4%; C: 57.2%; P = 0.52). Untreated cows had lower odds of carrying resistant E. coli than treated cows (B: OR 0.44, P<0.001; C: OR 0.54, P = 0.007). Non-pansusceptibility of isolates was associated with antimicrobial treatment (1 treatment: OR 2.11, P = 0.001; ≥2: OR 1.76, P = 0.043). Using manure on forage crops was associated with higher odds of pansusceptibility (OR 2.01, P = 0.004). For daily practice, with regard to the risk of AMR transmission, results of this study do not provide evidence for the need to separate treated cows from others during treatment in tie-stalls.
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.