Industrikylling oppdrettes med rutinemessig bruk av antibiotika, og antibiotikaresistente bakterier (f.eks. ESBL-produserende E. coli, MRSA, resistent Campylobacter, mcr-1) spres fra fjærfe til mennesker via matkjeden.

Hva ville forskerne finne ut?

What are the prevalence, resistance and genotypes of S. aureus in US meat and poultry?

Hvordan ble studien gjennomført?

Cross-sectional microbiological survey of retail meat and poultry with susceptibility testing and genotyping

Hvor mange mennesker, dyr eller prøver ble undersøkt?

136 samples; Retail meat and poultry samples

Hva ble faktisk funnet?

S. aureus: turkey 77%, pork 42%, chicken 41%, beef 37%; multidrug resistance 52% overall (chicken 26%); MRSA 3 isolates, none from chicken.

Hvor stor var den observerte effekten?

Proportions; comparisons between sample types

Hva betyr resultatene i hverdagen?

Raw meat can carry resistant bacteria; hygiene and cooking matter.

Hvilke begrensninger har studien?

Small convenience sample; mixed meats; no human outcomes; funded by an advocacy foundation; authors say public-health relevance is unclear.

Hva sier den om Elawadys konkrete påstand?

Supports presence of resistant bacteria on meat.

Gjelder resultatene for Tyskland og Europa?

Moderate; EU AMR monitoring covers MRSA.

Hva kan uttrykkelig ikke konkluderes ut fra denne studien?

Cannot show how many people get sick.

Vitenskapelige detaljer →

Hva ville forskerne finne ut?

What proportion of human clinical ESBL E. coli carry poultry-associated genes, plasmids and strains?

Hvordan ble studien gjennomført?

Molecular epidemiological study comparing ESBL genes, plasmids and strains from poultry, retail chicken and human clinical isolates

Hvor mange mennesker, dyr eller prøver ble undersøkt?

98 retail chicken samples; 516 human clinical samples; Retail chicken, poultry, human clinical samples from 31 labs

Hva ble faktisk funnet?

94% of retail meat samples contained ESBL producers; 39% of these belonged to E. coli genotypes also present in human samples. 35% of human isolates contained poultry-associated ESBL genes; 19% had PA genes on IncI1 plasmids indistinguishable from poultry.

Hvor stor var den observerte effekten?

Descriptive proportions; microarray, pMLST, MLST

Hva betyr resultatene i hverdagen?

Resistance genes can move from poultry to people.

Hvilke begrensninger har studien?

Cross-sectional; direction of transmission inferred; 2009 data

Hva sier den om Elawadys konkrete påstand?

Supports the claim.

Gjelder resultatene for Tyskland og Europa?

High (EU country).

Hva kan uttrykkelig ikke konkluderes ut fra denne studien?

Cannot say how many human infections come from chicken.

Vitenskapelige detaljer →

Hva ville forskerne finne ut?

What are prevalence and characteristics of ESBL genes in retail chicken and humans in the Netherlands?

Hvordan ble studien gjennomført?

Cross-sectional study of ESBL genes in retail chicken and human rectal/blood isolates

Hvor mange mennesker, dyr eller prøver ble undersøkt?

Not stated in abstract; Retail chicken; patients in 4 hospitals

Hva ble faktisk funnet?

ESBL genes in 79.8% of chicken meat; predominant genes identical in meat and human rectal swabs; frequently in blood isolates; high similarity of E. coli strains.

Hvor stor var den observerte effekten?

Descriptive

Hva betyr resultatene i hverdagen?

Resistant bacteria on raw chicken are common in some countries.

Hvilke begrensninger har studien?

Directionality inferred; Sample sizes not in abstract

Hva sier den om Elawadys konkrete påstand?

Supports the claim.

Gjelder resultatene for Tyskland og Europa?

High.

Hva kan uttrykkelig ikke konkluderes ut fra denne studien?

Cannot prove transmission direction.

Vitenskapelige detaljer →

Hva ville forskerne finne ut?

How much antimicrobial is used in livestock globally and how will it change?

Hvordan ble studien gjennomført?

Bayesian modelling of global antimicrobial use in food animals for 2010 and 2030

Hvor mange mennesker, dyr eller prøver ble undersøkt?

Not applicable; Global livestock (cattle, chicken, pigs)

Hva ble faktisk funnet?

Average 45 (cattle), 148 (chicken), 172 (pigs) mg/kg. Increase of 67% from 63,151 +/- 1,560 t to 105,596 +/- 3,605 t (2010-2030). Up to a third of increase from middle-income countries shifting to intensive systems; BRICS +99%.

Hvor stor var den observerte effekten?

Bayesian models

Hva betyr resultatene i hverdagen?

Antibiotic use in farming is large and growing in middle-income countries.

Hvilke begrensninger har studien?

Extrapolation from high-income data; Model uncertainty larger than reported SD may suggest

Hva sier den om Elawadys konkrete påstand?

Supports the context of the claim.

Gjelder resultatene for Tyskland og Europa?

Moderate.

Hva kan uttrykkelig ikke konkluderes ut fra denne studien?

Cannot show use in a given country.

Vitenskapelige detaljer →

Hva ville forskerne finne ut?

What are risk factors for fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter infection?

Hvordan ble studien gjennomført?

Population-based case-control study (FoodNet)

Hvor mange mennesker, dyr eller prøver ble undersøkt?

858 isolates tested; 64 FQ-resistant vs 582 susceptible with travel data; 33 matched case-control pairs; Patients with Campylobacter infection and matched controls

Hva ble faktisk funnet?

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).

Hvor stor var den observerte effekten?

OR, matched OR

Hva betyr resultatene i hverdagen?

Poultry can transmit resistant Campylobacter.

Hvilke begrensninger har studien?

Very wide CI (only 33 pairs); Recall bias

Hva sier den om Elawadys konkrete påstand?

Supports.

Gjelder resultatene for Tyskland og Europa?

Moderate.

Hva kan uttrykkelig ikke konkluderes ut fra denne studien?

Precise risk size.

Vitenskapelige detaljer →

Hva ville forskerne finne ut?

What happened after fluoroquinolones were withdrawn from US poultry?

Hvordan ble studien gjennomført?

Review of FQ-resistant Campylobacter and US regulatory withdrawal of enrofloxacin in poultry

Hvor mange mennesker, dyr eller prøver ble undersøkt?

Not applicable; US

Hva ble faktisk funnet?

FDA proposed withdrawal in 2000; enrofloxacin withdrawn from poultry effective September 2005; resistant strains continue to circulate.

Hvor stor var den observerte effekten?

Not applicable

Hva betyr resultatene i hverdagen?

Regulators can restrict drugs that drive resistance.

Hvilke begrensninger har studien?

Narrative; Authors from US agencies

Hva sier den om Elawadys konkrete påstand?

Supports problem existence.

Gjelder resultatene for Tyskland og Europa?

Moderate.

Hva kan uttrykkelig ikke konkluderes ut fra denne studien?

Cannot quantify impact.

Vitenskapelige detaljer →

Hva ville forskerne finne ut?

Is there plasmid-mediated polymyxin resistance in Enterobacteriaceae in China?

Hvordan ble studien gjennomført?

Surveillance plus microbiological and molecular study discovering plasmid-mediated colistin resistance (mcr-1)

Hvor mange mennesker, dyr eller prøver ble undersøkt?

804 animals; 523 raw meat samples; 1,322 inpatient samples; E. coli and K. pneumoniae from food animals, raw meat and inpatients in five provinces

Hva ble faktisk funnet?

mcr-1 in 166/804 (21%) animals, 78/523 (15%) raw meat, 16/1322 (1%) inpatients; transferable by conjugation; negated colistin in mice.

Hvor stor var den observerte effekten?

Descriptive; conjugation frequencies; mouse model

Hva betyr resultatene i hverdagen?

Farm antibiotic use can threaten important human medicines.

Hvilke begrensninger har studien?

China-specific surveillance; Index strain from a pig; poultry-specific share not given in abstract

Hva sier den om Elawadys konkrete påstand?

Supports resistance concern.

Gjelder resultatene for Tyskland og Europa?

Moderate.

Hva kan uttrykkelig ikke konkluderes ut fra denne studien?

Not specific to chicken.

Vitenskapelige detaljer →

Hva ville forskerne finne ut?

Does transition to organic practices lower antibiotic-resistant Enterococcus on poultry farms?

Hvordan ble studien gjennomført?

Field comparison of resistant Enterococcus in conventional vs newly organic poultry houses

Hvor mange mennesker, dyr eller prøver ble undersøkt?

20 houses; 259 Enterococcus isolates; 10 conventional and 10 newly organic poultry houses

Hva ble faktisk funnet?

MDR E. faecalis 42% conventional vs 10% organic (p=0.02); MDR E. faecium 84% vs 17% (p<0.001).

Hvor stor var den observerte effekten?

GLMM

Hva betyr resultatene i hverdagen?

Reducing antibiotic use reduces resistance.

Hvilke begrensninger har studien?

Small number of houses; Farm environment, not meat

Hva sier den om Elawadys konkrete påstand?

Supports.

Gjelder resultatene for Tyskland og Europa?

Moderate.

Hva kan uttrykkelig ikke konkluderes ut fra denne studien?

Cannot show human health effect.

Vitenskapelige detaljer →

Hva ville forskerne finne ut?

What caused a large multistate MDR Salmonella Heidelberg outbreak?

Hvordan ble studien gjennomført?

Outbreak investigation (epidemiological, laboratory, traceback)

Hvor mange mennesker, dyr eller prøver ble undersøkt?

634 cases; 435 interviewed; 634 US case-patients

Hva ble faktisk funnet?

634 sick (38% hospitalised, no deaths); 87% of those with brand data ate Company A chicken; 67% of tested patient isolates resistant, 35% multidrug-resistant; Salmonella in 26% of samples at the implicated plants, down to about 5% after fixes.

Hvor stor var den observerte effekten?

Descriptive

Hva betyr resultatene i hverdagen?

Shows why safe handling of raw chicken matters.

Hvilke begrensninger har studien?

Single outbreak

Hva sier den om Elawadys konkrete påstand?

Supports existence of hazard.

Gjelder resultatene for Tyskland og Europa?

Moderate.

Hva kan uttrykkelig ikke konkluderes ut fra denne studien?

Cannot give routine prevalence in chicken and does not support an 80-85% contamination rate.

Vitenskapelige detaljer →

Hva ville forskerne finne ut?

Could broiler meat and pork be sources of ExPEC strains in humans?

Hvordan ble studien gjennomført?

Molecular comparison of ExPEC virulence genes in E. coli from UTI patients, community humans, meat and animals

Hvor mange mennesker, dyr eller prøver ble undersøkt?

964 isolates; 964 E. coli isolates

Hva ble faktisk funnet?

Seven of eight ExPEC-related genes detected in isolates from broiler meat, broilers, pork and pigs; strong similarities between human and meat/animal isolate profiles.

Hvor stor var den observerte effekten?

PCR; cluster analysis

Hva betyr resultatene i hverdagen?

Meat could be one source of bacteria causing urinary infections.

Hvilke begrensninger har studien?

Gene presence, not transmission proof

Hva sier den om Elawadys konkrete påstand?

Supports plausibility.

Gjelder resultatene for Tyskland og Europa?

High.

Hva kan uttrykkelig ikke konkluderes ut fra denne studien?

Cannot prove transmission.

Vitenskapelige detaljer →

Hva ville forskerne finne ut?

Effect of restricting antibiotic use in food animals on resistance in animals and humans

Hvordan ble studien gjennomført?

Systematic review and meta-analysis (WHO-commissioned)

Hvor mange mennesker, dyr eller prøver ble undersøkt?

181 studies (179 animal, 21 human); Food-producing animals; humans

Hva ble faktisk funnet?

In animals resistance was usually 10-15 percentage points lower with restrictions (poultry 18 points); in studied humans 24 points lower, mainly in farm workers (29 points) and much less in non-farm people (9 points, 3 studies).

Hvor stor var den observerte effekten?

Random-effects risk differences

Hva betyr resultatene i hverdagen?

Prudent farm antibiotic use protects human medicine.

Hvilke begrensninger har studien?

Mostly cross-sectional, poorly adjusted studies; very high heterogeneity; few human studies, mostly farm workers; possible publication bias in human studies; almost no data from low- and middle-income countries.

Hva sier den om Elawadys konkrete påstand?

Supports.

Gjelder resultatene for Tyskland og Europa?

High.

Hva kan uttrykkelig ikke konkluderes ut fra denne studien?

Cannot quantify effect on all consumers.

Vitenskapelige detaljer →

Hva ville forskerne finne ut?

AMR in Salmonella, Campylobacter, indicator E. coli, MRSA in humans, animals, food

Hvordan ble studien gjennomført?

EU harmonised AMR monitoring report

Hvor mange mennesker, dyr eller prøver ble undersøkt?

Not stated in abstract; EU MSs

Hva ble faktisk funnet?

Resistance differed greatly between countries; resistance to common antimicrobials frequent in Salmonella and Campylobacter; increasing resistance to a critically important antimicrobial in poultry-associated Salmonella and Campylobacter from humans in at least half of reporting countries; encouraging progress in key outcome indicators in several MSs over 7 years.

Hvor stor var den observerte effekten?

Descriptive; trend analysis

Hva betyr resultatene i hverdagen?

The problem is real in the EU too, but monitored.

Hvilke begrensninger har studien?

Country variation in sampling

Hva sier den om Elawadys konkrete påstand?

Supports, with nuance.

Gjelder resultatene for Tyskland og Europa?

Directly EU.

Hva kan uttrykkelig ikke konkluderes ut fra denne studien?

Not consumer risk per meal.

Vitenskapelige detaljer →

Hva ville forskerne finne ut?

Prevalence, resistance and virulence genes of Salmonella in broilers and retail carcasses

Hvordan ble studien gjennomført?

Cross-sectional microbiological survey

Hvor mange mennesker, dyr eller prøver ble undersøkt?

420 samples from 5 broiler farms and 5 retail shops, El-Sharkia, summer 2017

Hva ble faktisk funnet?

Salmonella in 28.6% of all samples (carcasses 29.4%, cloacal swabs 32%, environment 22%); 76.7% of isolates multidrug-resistant; all resistant to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole; none to imipenem.

Hvor stor var den observerte effekten?

Descriptive

Hva betyr resultatene i hverdagen?

In Egypt, careful handling and cooking of chicken is especially important.

Hvilke begrensninger har studien?

Only 5 farms and 5 shops in one province, one season; no human data; descriptive only.

Hva sier den om Elawadys konkrete påstand?

Supports concern but not 80-85%.

Gjelder resultatene for Tyskland og Europa?

Low (Egypt).

Hva kan uttrykkelig ikke konkluderes ut fra denne studien?

Not national.

Vitenskapelige detaljer →

Hva ville forskerne finne ut?

Epidemiology of colistin resistance in MENA

Hvordan ble studien gjennomført?

Narrative review

Hvor mange mennesker, dyr eller prøver ble undersøkt?

Not applicable; Humans, animals, food, environment

Hva ble faktisk funnet?

North Africa prevalence of colistin-resistant Gram-negatives: Tunisia 58.09%, Egypt 24.76%, Algeria 14.29%, Libya 2.86% (from available literature); mcr-1 predominant; resistance documented in poultry and food.

Hvor stor var den observerte effekten?

Descriptive

Hva betyr resultatene i hverdagen?

Farm antibiotic use matters for human medicine in Egypt too.

Hvilke begrensninger har studien?

Narrative; heterogeneous sources

Hva sier den om Elawadys konkrete påstand?

Supports.

Gjelder resultatene for Tyskland og Europa?

Low.

Hva kan uttrykkelig ikke konkluderes ut fra denne studien?

Not precise prevalence.

Vitenskapelige detaljer →

Hva ville forskerne finne ut?

What are the AMR levels and trends in Salmonella, Campylobacter and indicator E. coli from humans, food-producing animals and meat in the EU?

Hvordan ble studien gjennomført?

EU harmonised AMR monitoring report

Hvor mange mennesker, dyr eller prøver ble undersøkt?

EU-wide monitoring (numbers not in abstract)

Hva ble faktisk funnet?

High proportions of Salmonella and Campylobacter isolates from humans and animals resistant to ampicillin, tetracycline and sulfonamides. Increasing ciprofloxacin resistance in human infections with a poultry-associated Salmonella serovar and in C. jejuni in more than half of reporting countries. Resistance differed greatly between countries. Very high third-generation cephalosporin resistance in Salmonella from imported broiler and turkey meat. Encouraging progress in reducing AMR in food-producing animals in several Member States over the past decade, partly plateauing.

Hvor stor var den observerte effekten?

High proportions of Salmonella and Campylobacter isolates from humans and animals resistant to ampicillin, tetracycline and sulfonamides. Increasing ciprofloxacin resistance in human infections with a poultry-associated Salmonella serovar and in C. jejuni in more than half of reporting countries. Resistance differed greatly between countries. Very high third-generation cephalosporin resistance in Salmonella from imported broiler and turkey meat. Encouraging progress in reducing AMR in food-producing animals in several Member States over the past decade, partly plateauing.

Hva betyr resultatene i hverdagen?

Antibiotic resistance linked to poultry is a real, monitored problem in Europe, improving in some countries.

Hvilke begrensninger har studien?

Abstract only (read via Crossref); No PMID located

Hva sier den om Elawadys konkrete påstand?

Supports the resistance part of the claim for the EU, with country differences.

Gjelder resultatene for Tyskland og Europa?

Directly EU data.

Hva kan uttrykkelig ikke konkluderes ut fra denne studien?

Does not quantify how many human infections come from eating chicken.

Vitenskapelige detaljer →

Hva ville forskerne finne ut?

What antimicrobials are used on Egyptian animal farms, for what purposes, and why?

Hvordan ble studien gjennomført?

Cross-sectional survey of farm personnel

Hvor mange mennesker, dyr eller prøver ble undersøkt?

111 of 150 farms (74% response)

Hva ble faktisk funnet?

All surveyed personnel reported antimicrobial use; 65% used them for non-therapeutic purposes (prevention or growth promotion). Non-therapeutic use had no impact on FCR in any farm type. Most used: penicillins 81%, macrolides 78%, tetracyclines 72%. Half used colistin; 55% of these non-therapeutically.

Hvor stor var den observerte effekten?

All surveyed personnel reported antimicrobial use; 65% used them for non-therapeutic purposes (prevention or growth promotion). Non-therapeutic use had no impact on FCR in any farm type. Most used: penicillins 81%, macrolides 78%, tetracyclines 72%. Half used colistin; 55% of these non-therapeutically.

Hva betyr resultatene i hverdagen?

In Egypt, routine antibiotic use in animals is common.

Hvilke begrensninger har studien?

Self-report; Farms selected from a private platform list; Small sample

Hva sier den om Elawadys konkrete påstand?

Supports 'routine antibiotics' for Egypt.

Gjelder resultatene for Tyskland og Europa?

Not applicable to the EU (growth promoters banned since 2006).

Hva kan uttrykkelig ikke konkluderes ut fra denne studien?

Not representative of all Egyptian farms.

Vitenskapelige detaljer →

Hva ville forskerne finne ut?

How should medically important antimicrobials be used in food-producing animals?

Hvordan ble studien gjennomført?

Summary of WHO guideline developed with GRADE and commissioned systematic reviews

Hvor mange mennesker, dyr eller prøver ble undersøkt?

not applicable

Hva ble faktisk funnet?

Recommends reduction in overall use of medically important antimicrobials, complete restriction of use for growth promotion and for disease prevention in healthy animals, and no use of critically important antimicrobials unless susceptibility testing shows they are the only option.

Hvor stor var den observerte effekten?

Recommends reduction in overall use of medically important antimicrobials, complete restriction of use for growth promotion and for disease prevention in healthy animals, and no use of critically important antimicrobials unless susceptibility testing shows they are the only option.

Hva betyr resultatene i hverdagen?

The international health authority agrees that farm antibiotic use is a resistance problem.

Hvilke begrensninger har studien?

Recommendations rest partly on low-certainty evidence

Hva sier den om Elawadys konkrete påstand?

Supports the resistance concern; does not quantify human harm.

Gjelder resultatene for Tyskland og Europa?

EU rules (Reg. 2019/6) largely implement these principles.

Hva kan uttrykkelig ikke konkluderes ut fra denne studien?

Not a measure of current use in any country.

Vitenskapelige detaljer →

Hva ville forskerne finne ut?

How often are oxytetracycline, gentamicin and ciprofloxacin residues present in retail chicken in Egypt, and does boiling reduce them?

Hvordan ble studien gjennomført?

Cross-sectional residue survey (microbial inhibition test plus HPLC) with a boiling experiment

Hvor mange mennesker, dyr eller prøver ble undersøkt?

100 samples (25 per tissue)

Hva ble faktisk funnet?

Positive: oxytetracycline 23%, gentamicin 21%, ciprofloxacin 17% of samples. Gentamicin by tissue: breast 16%, thigh 16%, gizzard 20%, liver 32%; mean concentrations (ng/g) 31.8, 52.5, 201.3, 243.2 (max liver 378.5). Above the MRL used: breast 1/25, thigh 2/25, gizzard 4/25, liver 5/25. Boiling 30 min reduced gentamicin by 91.8-95.2% (liver 378.5 -> 18.3 ng/g), oxytetracycline by 88.2% and ciprofloxacin by 23-31%.

Hvor stor var den observerte effekten?

Positive: oxytetracycline 23%, gentamicin 21%, ciprofloxacin 17% of samples. Gentamicin by tissue: breast 16%, thigh 16%, gizzard 20%, liver 32%; mean concentrations (ng/g) 31.8, 52.5, 201.3, 243.2 (max liver 378.5). Above the MRL used: breast 1/25, thigh 2/25, gizzard 4/25, liver 5/25. Boiling 30 min reduced gentamicin by 91.8-95.2% (liver 378.5 -> 18.3 ng/g), oxytetracycline by 88.2% and ciprofloxacin by 23-31%.

Hva betyr resultatene i hverdagen?

Antibiotic traces are real in Egyptian chicken, especially in offal; cooking removes most gentamicin; the amounts are tiny compared with medical doses.

Hvilke begrensninger har studien?

Small sample from one governorate; Gentamicin MRLs taken from EU bovine/porcine values (EU 37/2010 lists gentamicin MRLs only for bovine and porcine species, I-RES-01); Inconsistent counts (21 MIT-positive vs 25 positive in Table 7 text); No dietary risk assessment

Hva sier den om Elawadys konkrete påstand?

Supports that gentamicin is used in Egyptian broilers; does not support kidney or hearing damage.

Gjelder resultatene for Tyskland og Europa?

Not applicable to EU production.

Hva kan uttrykkelig ikke konkluderes ut fra denne studien?

Cannot show any health effect.

Vitenskapelige detaljer →

Hva ville forskerne finne ut?

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

Hvordan ble studien gjennomført?

Cross-sectional retail survey of S. aureus and MRSA in pork

Hvor mange mennesker, dyr eller prøver ble undersøkt?

395 pork samples; Retail pork from 36 stores

Hva ble faktisk funnet?

S. aureus 64.8%; MRSA 6.6% (4.3-9.5%); no significant differences between conventional and alternative pork.

Hvor stor var den observerte effekten?

Proportions, 95% CI

Hva betyr resultatene i hverdagen?

Not about chicken.

Hvilke begrensninger har studien?

Pork, not poultry

Hva sier den om Elawadys konkrete påstand?

Limits the claim.

Gjelder resultatene for Tyskland og Europa?

Moderate.

Hva kan uttrykkelig ikke konkluderes ut fra denne studien?

Says nothing about chicken.

Vitenskapelige detaljer →

Hva ville forskerne finne ut?

Rules for feed additives including phase-out of antibiotic growth promoters

Hvordan ble studien gjennomført?

EU regulation

Hvor mange mennesker, dyr eller prøver ble undersøkt?

Not applicable; EU animal feed

Hva ble faktisk funnet?

Article 11(2): antibiotics, other than coccidiostats and histomonostats, may be marketed and used as feed additives only until 31 December 2005; from 1 January 2006 deleted from the Register. Recital 25 cites the Scientific Steering Committee: growth-promoting antimicrobials from classes used in medicine should be phased out.

Hvor stor var den observerte effekten?

Not applicable

Hva betyr resultatene i hverdagen?

"Routine antibiotics for growth" is not legal in the EU.

Hvilke begrensninger har studien?

Therapeutic and prophylactic veterinary use regulated separately (not covered)

Hva sier den om Elawadys konkrete påstand?

Limits the claim for the EU.

Gjelder resultatene for Tyskland og Europa?

Directly EU.

Hva kan uttrykkelig ikke konkluderes ut fra denne studien?

Does not cover therapeutic use.

Vitenskapelige detaljer →

Hva ville forskerne finne ut?

Antibiotic residues in chicken tissues and consumer risk

Hvordan ble studien gjennomført?

Cross-sectional residue survey (HPLC) with risk assessment

Hvor mange mennesker, dyr eller prøver ble undersøkt?

180 samples (60 breast, 60 thigh, 60 liver); Chicken tissues from poultry shops

Hva ble faktisk funnet?

Detected: enrofloxacin 51.67%, oxytetracycline 71.67%, sulfadimidine 16.67%; of positives, 54.84%, 55.81% and 70% exceeded MRLs. Liver had highest levels (e.g., oxytetracycline mean 10,625 ug/kg). EDI 0.012-0.590 ug/kg bw/day; HQ 0.0002-0.050, indicating no significant health risk.

Hvor stor var den observerte effekten?

Descriptive; HQ

Hva betyr resultatene i hverdagen?

Withdrawal periods are not always respected in some Egyptian supply chains.

Hvilke begrensninger har studien?

One city; unclear shop selection; no confirmatory LC-MS/MS; risk estimate uses average levels and intakes only; eggs not studied.

Hva sier den om Elawadys konkrete påstand?

Supports residue concern in Egypt; not toxicity.

Gjelder resultatene for Tyskland og Europa?

Low (Egypt).

Hva kan uttrykkelig ikke konkluderes ut fra denne studien?

Cannot generalise nationwide.

Vitenskapelige detaljer →

Hva ville forskerne finne ut?

What proportion of community-acquired ESBL/pAmpC E. coli carriage is attributable to human, animal, food and environmental sources?

Hvordan ble studien gjennomført?

Population-based source-attribution modelling (ESBL/pAmpC genes), Netherlands 2005-2017

Hvor mange mennesker, dyr eller prøver ble undersøkt?

1,220 human and 6,275 non-human gene occurrences

Hva ble faktisk funnet?

Human-to-human transmission within/between households 60.1% (95% CrI 40.0-73.5); secondary transmission from high-risk groups 6.9%; food 18.9% (7.0-38.3); companion animals 7.9%; farm animals (non-occupational) 3.6%; environment 2.6%. R0 for intracommunity transmission 0.63.

Hvor stor var den observerte effekten?

Human-to-human transmission within/between households 60.1% (95% CrI 40.0-73.5); secondary transmission from high-risk groups 6.9%; food 18.9% (7.0-38.3); companion animals 7.9%; farm animals (non-occupational) 3.6%; environment 2.6%. R0 for intracommunity transmission 0.63.

Hva betyr resultatene i hverdagen?

Food is a real but not the main route for these resistant bacteria in the Netherlands.

Hvilke begrensninger har studien?

Model assumptions; Food not split by type in abstract; Erratum published

Hva sier den om Elawadys konkrete påstand?

Supports the food-chain route but limits its size.

Gjelder resultatene for Tyskland og Europa?

Directly EU-relevant (Netherlands).

Hva kan uttrykkelig ikke konkluderes ut fra denne studien?

Not specific to chicken; different in high-use countries.

Vitenskapelige detaljer →