SynthesisFrontiers in microbiology2025
Quantifying antimicrobial resistance in food-producing animals in North America.
Synthesis in Frontiers in microbiology, 2025. 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.
- Genomic analyses of antibiotic-resistant Escherichia coli from extensive beef cattle and sheep farms identifies inter-species and farm-farm sharing as clonal dissemination pathways.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2026Article
- Bacterial profile and antimicrobial resistance in patients with pulmonary infection: a retrospective tertiary hospital-based study.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Antibiotic Residues in Meat and Animal Feed and Their Association with Antimicrobial Resistance: Evidence from the Kostanay Region, Kazakhstan.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Phenotypic and Genomic Profiling ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Cultured Meat: A Multidimensional Review of Technological, Nutritional, Ethical, and Regulatory Advances (2020-2025).Journal of food science · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The global misuse of antimicrobial medication has further exacerbated the problem of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), enriching the pool of genetic mechanisms previously adopted by bacteria to evade antimicrobial drugs. AMR can be either intrinsic or acquired. It can be acquired either by selective genetic modification or by horizontal gene transfer that allows microorganisms to incorporate novel genes from other organisms or environments into their genomes. To avoid an eventual antimicrobial mistreatment, the use of antimicrobials in farm animal has been recently reconsidered in many countries. We present a systematic review of the literature discussing the cases of AMR and the related restrictions applied in North American countries (including Canada, Mexico, and the USA). The Google Scholar, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched to find plausible information on antimicrobial use and resistance in food-producing animals, covering the time period from 2015 to 2024. A total of 580 articles addressing the issue of antibiotic resistance in food-producing animals in North America met our inclusion criteria. Different AMR rates, depending on the bacterium being observed, the antibiotic class being used, and the farm animal being considered, have been identified. We determined that the highest average AMR rates have been observed for pigs (60.63% on average), the medium for cattle (48.94% on average), and the lowest for poultry (28.43% on average). We also found that Cephalosporines, Penicillins, and Tetracyclines are the antibiotic classes with the highest average AMR rates (65.86%, 61.32%, and 58.82%, respectively), whereas the use of Sulfonamides and Quinolones leads to the lowest average AMR (21.59% and 28.07%, respectively). Moreover, our analysis of antibiotic-resistant bacteria shows that
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.