Cross-sectional studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked A-CHK-14 standard review

MRSA in US retail pork

MRSA in conventional and alternative retail pork products.

Overview

O'Brien AM et al.. PLoS One 2012 · PMID 22276147 · DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0030092

Pork raised without antibiotics carried MRSA as often as conventional pork.

Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: moderate

Study explained simply

What did the researchers want to find out?: What is S. aureus/MRSA prevalence in conventional vs alternative retail pork?
How was the study done?: Cross-sectional retail survey of S. aureus and MRSA in pork
How many people, animals or samples were studied?: 395 pork samples; Retail pork from 36 stores
What was actually found?: S. aureus 64.8%; MRSA 6.6% (4.3-9.5%); no significant differences between conventional and alternative pork.
How large was the observed effect?: Proportions, 95% CI
What do the results mean in everyday life?: Not about chicken.
What are the study's limitations?: Pork, not poultry
What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?: Limits the claim.
Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?: Moderate.
What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?: Says nothing about chicken.

Authors: O'Brien AM, Hanson BM, Farina SA, Wu JY, Simmering JE, Wardyn SE, Forshey BM, Kulick ME, Wallinga DB, Smith TC
Journal: PLoS One
Year: 2012
Identifier: PMID 22276147 DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0030092 · PMC3261874
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

What is S. aureus/MRSA prevalence in conventional vs alternative retail pork?

Study design: Cross-sectional study – Cross-sectional retail survey of S. aureus and MRSA in pork
Population: Retail pork from 36 stores
Country: USA (Iowa, Minnesota, New Jersey)
Period: Not stated (published 2012)
Sample size: 395 pork samples
Inclusion and exclusion criteria: Conventional and "raised without antibiotics" pork

Results: S. aureus 64.8%; MRSA 6.6% (4.3-9.5%); no significant differences between conventional and alternative pork.
Absolute risks: not applicable
Authors' conclusion: MRSA prevalence higher than previous US studies.

Null difference by production type.

C-CHK-05 (limiting).

Is counter-evidence.

Moderate.

Misplaced in a chicken rule.

Multidimensional assessment
Multidimensional assessment
Authenticity of the source	verified
Methodological quality	moderate
Risk of bias	some concerns
Precision of results	moderate
Directness	very indirect
Reproducibility	partly replicated
Consistency with the overall evidence	mixed
Regional transferability	moderate
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)	taken out of context

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?: MRSA in pork.
B. What did the authors find?: No difference conventional vs antibiotic-free.
C. What conclusions do the authors themselves draw?: Higher MRSA than prior US studies.
D. What does the archive derive from it?: Listed under chicken rule.
E. Is this derivation scientifically justified?: Out of context: pork study; finding of no difference by antibiotic use limits the claim.
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive): taken out of context