Case-control studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked A-CHK-07 standard review

Resistant Campylobacter linked to poultry in the US

Fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter infections: eating poultry outside of the home and foreign travel are risk factors.

Overview

Kassenborg HD et al.. Clin Infect Dis 2004 · PMID 15095200 · DOI 10.1086/381597

Domestic resistant infections were linked to eating chicken or turkey at restaurants.

Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: moderate

Study explained simply

What did the researchers want to find out?: What are risk factors for fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter infection?
How was the study done?: Population-based case-control study (FoodNet)
How many people, animals or samples were studied?: 858 isolates tested; 64 FQ-resistant vs 582 susceptible with travel data; 33 matched case-control pairs; Patients with Campylobacter infection and matched controls
What was actually found?: 11% resistant. Travel OR 7.6 (4.3-13.4). Domestic cases: eating chicken or turkey at commercial establishment matched OR 10.0 (1.3-78).
How large was the observed effect?: OR, matched OR
What do the results mean in everyday life?: Poultry can transmit resistant Campylobacter.
What are the study's limitations?: Very wide CI (only 33 pairs); Recall bias
What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?: Supports.
Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?: Moderate.
What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?: Precise risk size.

Authors: Kassenborg HD, Smith KE, Vugia DJ, Rabatsky-Ehr T, Bates MR, Carter MA, Dumas NB, Cassidy MP, Marano N, Tauxe RV, Angulo FJ, Emerging Infections Program FoodNet Working Group
Journal: Clin Infect Dis
Year: 2004
Identifier: PMID 15095200 DOI 10.1086/381597
Verification: verified – PubMed E-utilities efetch, 2026-10-25
Retracted: no
Corrections: none
Extent checked: abstract only
Conflicts of interest and funding: No COI statement in record

What are risk factors for fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter infection?

Study design: Case-control study – Population-based case-control study (FoodNet)
Population: Patients with Campylobacter infection and matched controls
Country: USA
Period: 1998-1999
Sample size: 858 isolates tested; 64 FQ-resistant vs 582 susceptible with travel data; 33 matched case-control pairs
Inclusion and exclusion criteria: FoodNet areas

Results: 11% resistant. Travel OR 7.6 (4.3-13.4). Domestic cases: eating chicken or turkey at commercial establishment matched OR 10.0 (1.3-78).
Absolute risks: not applicable
Authors' conclusion: Poultry is an important source of domestically acquired FQ-resistant Campylobacter.

OR 10 with CI 1.3-78 is imprecise.

None.

Moderate.

Supports claim.

Multidimensional assessment
Multidimensional assessment
Authenticity of the source	verified
Methodological quality	moderate
Risk of bias	some concerns
Precision of results	low
Directness	direct
Reproducibility	partly replicated
Consistency with the overall evidence	consistent
Regional transferability	moderate
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)	not applicable

None.

Note: according to the archive, the studies were compiled by the archive operators. Whether Dr. Elawady himself cited this study is not established.

What the archive says about the study: Listed in bibliography (no interpretation).
A. What was actually studied?: Risk factors for FQ-resistant Campylobacter.
B. What did the authors find?: Travel and restaurant poultry associated.
C. What conclusions do the authors themselves draw?: Poultry important source.
D. What does the archive derive from it?: Supports resistant bacteria from poultry.
E. Is this derivation scientifically justified?: Justified.
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive): not applicable