Narrative reviewcited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked A-CHK-08 standard review
US ban of fluoroquinolones in poultry
Fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter species and the withdrawal of fluoroquinolones from use in poultry: a public health success story.
Overview
Nelson JM et al.. Clin Infect Dis 2007 · PMID 17342653 · DOI 10.1086/512369
Resistance concerns led the US to withdraw enrofloxacin from poultry in 2005.
Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: moderate
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
What happened after fluoroquinolones were withdrawn from US poultry?
- How was the study done?
Review of FQ-resistant Campylobacter and US regulatory withdrawal of enrofloxacin in poultry
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Not applicable; US
- What was actually found?
FDA proposed withdrawal in 2000; enrofloxacin withdrawn from poultry effective September 2005; resistant strains continue to circulate.
- How large was the observed effect?
Not applicable
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
Regulators can restrict drugs that drive resistance.
- What are the study's limitations?
Narrative; Authors from US agencies
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports problem existence.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Moderate.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Cannot quantify impact.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Nelson JM, Chiller TM, Powers JH, Angulo FJ
- Journal
- Clin Infect Dis
- Year
- 2007
- Identifier
- PMID 17342653 DOI 10.1086/512369
- 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
2. Research question
What happened after fluoroquinolones were withdrawn from US poultry?
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Narrative review – Review of FQ-resistant Campylobacter and US regulatory withdrawal of enrofloxacin in poultry
- Population
US
- Country
USA
- Period
Up to 2007
- Sample size
Not applicable
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Not systematic
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
Enrofloxacin use in poultry
- Comparator
Not applicable
- Endpoints
Resistance; regulatory process
- Statistical methods
Not applicable
5. Actual results
- Results
FDA proposed withdrawal in 2000; enrofloxacin withdrawn from poultry effective September 2005; resistant strains continue to circulate.
- Absolute risks
not applicable
- Authors' conclusion
Judicious use in human and veterinary medicine essential.
6. Strengths
- Documents regulatory action
7. Weaknesses
- Narrative
- Authors from US agencies
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- none applicable
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- not assessable
- Rationale
Narrative.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
Not applicable.
10. Relevance to the specific claim
11. Independent contrary findings
Shows regulation works.
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
Moderate.
13. Overall methodological judgement
Supports both problem and regulatory response.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | moderate |
| Risk of bias | not assessable |
| Precision of results | not applicable |
| Directness | indirect |
| Reproducibility | unknown |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | consistent |
| Regional transferability | moderate |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not applicable |
14. Open questions
Effect size after withdrawal.
15. Linked fact checks
Use by the Tayebat archive
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?
Regulatory history.
- B. What did the authors find?
Withdrawal in 2005.
- C. What conclusions do the authors themselves draw?
Judicious use essential.
- D. What does the archive derive from it?
Supports resistance narrative.
- E. Is this derivation scientifically justified?
Justified; also shows that regulators act.
- Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)
- not applicable