Narrative reviewcited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked★ key study A-FSH-11 in-depth review
Antibiotics in fish farming and resistance (review)
Antimicrobial use in aquaculture re-examined: its relevance to antimicrobial resistance and to animal and human health.
Overview
Cabello FC et al.. Environ Microbiol 2013 · PMID 23711078 · DOI 10.1111/1462-2920.12134
Most aquaculture antibiotics reach the environment and may spread resistance genes to human pathogens.
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?
Review AMR in aquaculture.
- How was the study done?
Narrative review.
- What was actually found?
Antibiotics escape; shared genes.
- How large was the observed effect?
~80% (estimate).
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
A One Health issue.
- What are the study's limitations?
Not systematic.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports concern.
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
Moderate.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Size of human harm.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Cabello FC, Godfrey HP, Tomova A, Ivanova L, Dölz H, Millanao A, Buschmann AH
- Journal
- Environ Microbiol
- Year
- 2013
- Identifier
- PMID 23711078 DOI 10.1111/1462-2920.12134
- Verification
- verified – PubMed E-utilities efetch, 2026-10-25
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
not stated in abstract/record
2. Research question
How does aquaculture antimicrobial use relate to AMR and health?
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Narrative review – Narrative review of antimicrobial use in aquaculture and AMR
- Country
Global (authors partly Chile-based)
- Period
2013
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
not stated
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
Antimicrobial use in aquaculture
- Endpoints
AMR mechanisms
5. Actual results
- Results
'Approximately 80% of antimicrobials used in aquaculture enter the environment with their activity intact'; shared resistance determinants (quinolones, tetracyclines, beta-lactamases) between aquatic bacteria, fish and human pathogens.
- Absolute risks
not reported
- Authors' conclusion
Excessive use 'can thus potentially negatively impact animal and human health' and should be better assessed and regulated.
6. Strengths
- Comprehensive mechanistic synthesis
7. Weaknesses
- Narrative, not systematic
- 80% figure is an estimate
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- none applicable
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- some concerns
- Rationale
Narrative review.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
10. Relevance to the specific claim
11. Independent contrary findings
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
Moderate.
13. Overall methodological judgement
Credible review; potential rather than quantified harm.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | moderate |
| Risk of bias | some concerns |
| Precision of results | not applicable |
| Directness | indirect |
| Reproducibility | partly replicated |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | consistent |
| Regional transferability | moderate |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | essentially correct but incomplete |
14. Open questions
Attributable human AMR burden.
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
Roughly 80% of antibiotics used in aquaculture escape into the environment, accelerating antimicrobial resistance transferable to human pathogens.
- A. What was actually studied?
Review of AMR in aquaculture.
- B. What did the authors find?
~80% enter environment; shared resistance genes.
- C. What conclusions do the authors themselves draw?
Potential negative impact; better regulation needed.
- D. What does the archive derive from it?
Used to support 'vast quantities of antibiotics'.
- E. Is this derivation scientifically justified?
Essentially correct; the archive's 'accelerating ... transferable' is stronger than the review's 'potentially'.
- Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)
- essentially correct but incomplete