Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40881632›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2025

Phenotypical and genotypical resistance testing of

Leonard Barta, Anna Stöger, Daniel Polzer, Werner Ruppitsch, Friedrich Schmoll, Tatjana Sattler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Leonard BartaInstitute for Veterinary Investigations Mödling, Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety, Mödling, Austria.
Anna StögerInstitute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety, Vienna, Austria.
Daniel PolzerInstitute for Veterinary Investigations Mödling, Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety, Mödling, Austria.
Werner RuppitschInstitute of Hygiene and Medical Microbiology, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Friedrich SchmollInstitute for Veterinary Investigations Mödling, Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety, Mödling, Austria.
Tatjana SattlerInstitute for Veterinary Investigations Mödling, Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety, Mödling, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Methods: In this study, we tested 276 isolates of Results: About 20% of bovine isolates and 9% of pig isolates carried at least one resistance gene. No resistance genes were detected in isolates from other hosts. The most commonly detected resistance genes were against tetracyclines, aminoglycosides and sulphonamides. Resistance against florfenicol and macrolides was scarce and only present in bovines. Three or more different resistance genes were found in 3% of porcine strains and 10% of cattle strains. In pig isolates, the comparison of phenotype and genotype revealed a good concordance rate using both the CAMHB and LHB methods. Method LHB + CO Discussion: We recommend performing antimicrobial resistance testing of

Indexed as

antimicrobial resistanceantimicrobial susceptibility testingbacteriologygenotypephenotype

Identifiers

PMID40881632
PMCPMC12380566

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.