工业化养殖的鸡常规使用抗生素，耐抗生素细菌（例如产ESBL的大肠杆菌、MRSA、耐药弯曲杆菌、mcr-1）会通过食物链从家禽传播给人类。

研究人员想了解什么？

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

研究是如何开展的？

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

研究了多少人、动物或样本？

136 samples; Retail meat and poultry samples

实际发现了什么？

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

观察到的效应有多大？

Proportions; comparisons between sample types

研究结果对日常生活意味着什么？

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

该研究有哪些局限？

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

它对 Elawady 的具体说法说明了什么？

Supports presence of resistant bacteria on meat.

研究结果是否适用于德国和欧洲？

Moderate; EU AMR monitoring covers MRSA.

从该研究中明确不能得出什么结论？

Cannot show how many people get sick.

科学细节 →

研究人员想了解什么？

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

研究是如何开展的？

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

研究了多少人、动物或样本？

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

实际发现了什么？

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.

观察到的效应有多大？

Descriptive proportions; microarray, pMLST, MLST

研究结果对日常生活意味着什么？

Resistance genes can move from poultry to people.

该研究有哪些局限？

Cross-sectional; direction of transmission inferred; 2009 data

它对 Elawady 的具体说法说明了什么？

Supports the claim.

研究结果是否适用于德国和欧洲？

High (EU country).

从该研究中明确不能得出什么结论？

Cannot say how many human infections come from chicken.

科学细节 →

研究人员想了解什么？

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

研究是如何开展的？

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

研究了多少人、动物或样本？

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

实际发现了什么？

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.

观察到的效应有多大？

Descriptive

研究结果对日常生活意味着什么？

Resistant bacteria on raw chicken are common in some countries.

该研究有哪些局限？

Directionality inferred; Sample sizes not in abstract

它对 Elawady 的具体说法说明了什么？

Supports the claim.

研究结果是否适用于德国和欧洲？

High.

从该研究中明确不能得出什么结论？

Cannot prove transmission direction.

科学细节 →

研究人员想了解什么？

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

研究是如何开展的？

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

研究了多少人、动物或样本？

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

实际发现了什么？

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%.

观察到的效应有多大？

Bayesian models

研究结果对日常生活意味着什么？

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

该研究有哪些局限？

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

它对 Elawady 的具体说法说明了什么？

Supports the context of the claim.

研究结果是否适用于德国和欧洲？

Moderate.

从该研究中明确不能得出什么结论？

Cannot show use in a given country.

科学细节 →

研究人员想了解什么？

What are risk factors for fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter infection?

研究是如何开展的？

Population-based case-control study (FoodNet)

研究了多少人、动物或样本？

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

实际发现了什么？

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).

观察到的效应有多大？

OR, matched OR

研究结果对日常生活意味着什么？

Poultry can transmit resistant Campylobacter.

该研究有哪些局限？

Very wide CI (only 33 pairs); Recall bias

它对 Elawady 的具体说法说明了什么？

Supports.

研究结果是否适用于德国和欧洲？

Moderate.

从该研究中明确不能得出什么结论？

Precise risk size.

科学细节 →

研究人员想了解什么？

What happened after fluoroquinolones were withdrawn from US poultry?

研究是如何开展的？

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

研究了多少人、动物或样本？

Not applicable; US

实际发现了什么？

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

观察到的效应有多大？

Not applicable

研究结果对日常生活意味着什么？

Regulators can restrict drugs that drive resistance.

该研究有哪些局限？

Narrative; Authors from US agencies

它对 Elawady 的具体说法说明了什么？

Supports problem existence.

研究结果是否适用于德国和欧洲？

Moderate.

从该研究中明确不能得出什么结论？

Cannot quantify impact.

科学细节 →

研究人员想了解什么？

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

研究是如何开展的？

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

研究了多少人、动物或样本？

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

实际发现了什么？

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

观察到的效应有多大？

Descriptive; conjugation frequencies; mouse model

研究结果对日常生活意味着什么？

Farm antibiotic use can threaten important human medicines.

该研究有哪些局限？

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

它对 Elawady 的具体说法说明了什么？

Supports resistance concern.

研究结果是否适用于德国和欧洲？

Moderate.

从该研究中明确不能得出什么结论？

Not specific to chicken.

科学细节 →

研究人员想了解什么？

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

研究是如何开展的？

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

研究了多少人、动物或样本？

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

实际发现了什么？

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

观察到的效应有多大？

GLMM

研究结果对日常生活意味着什么？

Reducing antibiotic use reduces resistance.

该研究有哪些局限？

Small number of houses; Farm environment, not meat

它对 Elawady 的具体说法说明了什么？

Supports.

研究结果是否适用于德国和欧洲？

Moderate.

从该研究中明确不能得出什么结论？

Cannot show human health effect.

科学细节 →

研究人员想了解什么？

What caused a large multistate MDR Salmonella Heidelberg outbreak?

研究是如何开展的？

Outbreak investigation (epidemiological, laboratory, traceback)

研究了多少人、动物或样本？

634 cases; 435 interviewed; 634 US case-patients

实际发现了什么？

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.

观察到的效应有多大？

Descriptive

研究结果对日常生活意味着什么？

Shows why safe handling of raw chicken matters.

该研究有哪些局限？

Single outbreak

它对 Elawady 的具体说法说明了什么？

Supports existence of hazard.

研究结果是否适用于德国和欧洲？

Moderate.

从该研究中明确不能得出什么结论？

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

科学细节 →

研究人员想了解什么？

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

研究是如何开展的？

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

研究了多少人、动物或样本？

964 isolates; 964 E. coli isolates

实际发现了什么？

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.

观察到的效应有多大？

PCR; cluster analysis

研究结果对日常生活意味着什么？

Meat could be one source of bacteria causing urinary infections.

该研究有哪些局限？

Gene presence, not transmission proof

它对 Elawady 的具体说法说明了什么？

Supports plausibility.

研究结果是否适用于德国和欧洲？

High.

从该研究中明确不能得出什么结论？

Cannot prove transmission.

科学细节 →

研究人员想了解什么？

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

研究是如何开展的？

Systematic review and meta-analysis (WHO-commissioned)

研究了多少人、动物或样本？

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

实际发现了什么？

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).

观察到的效应有多大？

Random-effects risk differences

研究结果对日常生活意味着什么？

Prudent farm antibiotic use protects human medicine.

该研究有哪些局限？

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.

它对 Elawady 的具体说法说明了什么？

Supports.

研究结果是否适用于德国和欧洲？

High.

从该研究中明确不能得出什么结论？

Cannot quantify effect on all consumers.

科学细节 →

研究人员想了解什么？

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

研究是如何开展的？

EU harmonised AMR monitoring report

研究了多少人、动物或样本？

Not stated in abstract; EU MSs

实际发现了什么？

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.

观察到的效应有多大？

Descriptive; trend analysis

研究结果对日常生活意味着什么？

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

该研究有哪些局限？

Country variation in sampling

它对 Elawady 的具体说法说明了什么？

Supports, with nuance.

研究结果是否适用于德国和欧洲？

Directly EU.

从该研究中明确不能得出什么结论？

Not consumer risk per meal.

科学细节 →

研究人员想了解什么？

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

研究是如何开展的？

Cross-sectional microbiological survey

研究了多少人、动物或样本？

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

实际发现了什么？

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.

观察到的效应有多大？

Descriptive

研究结果对日常生活意味着什么？

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

该研究有哪些局限？

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

它对 Elawady 的具体说法说明了什么？

Supports concern but not 80-85%.

研究结果是否适用于德国和欧洲？

Low (Egypt).

从该研究中明确不能得出什么结论？

Not national.

科学细节 →

研究人员想了解什么？

Epidemiology of colistin resistance in MENA

研究是如何开展的？

Narrative review

研究了多少人、动物或样本？

Not applicable; Humans, animals, food, environment

实际发现了什么？

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.

观察到的效应有多大？

Descriptive

研究结果对日常生活意味着什么？

Farm antibiotic use matters for human medicine in Egypt too.

该研究有哪些局限？

Narrative; heterogeneous sources

它对 Elawady 的具体说法说明了什么？

Supports.

研究结果是否适用于德国和欧洲？

Low.

从该研究中明确不能得出什么结论？

Not precise prevalence.

科学细节 →

研究人员想了解什么？

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

研究是如何开展的？

EU harmonised AMR monitoring report

研究了多少人、动物或样本？

EU-wide monitoring (numbers not in abstract)

实际发现了什么？

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.

观察到的效应有多大？

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.

研究结果对日常生活意味着什么？

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

该研究有哪些局限？

Abstract only (read via Crossref); No PMID located

它对 Elawady 的具体说法说明了什么？

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

研究结果是否适用于德国和欧洲？

Directly EU data.

从该研究中明确不能得出什么结论？

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

科学细节 →

研究人员想了解什么？

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

研究是如何开展的？

Cross-sectional survey of farm personnel

研究了多少人、动物或样本？

111 of 150 farms (74% response)

实际发现了什么？

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.

观察到的效应有多大？

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.

研究结果对日常生活意味着什么？

In Egypt, routine antibiotic use in animals is common.

该研究有哪些局限？

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

它对 Elawady 的具体说法说明了什么？

Supports 'routine antibiotics' for Egypt.

研究结果是否适用于德国和欧洲？

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

从该研究中明确不能得出什么结论？

Not representative of all Egyptian farms.

科学细节 →

研究人员想了解什么？

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

研究是如何开展的？

Summary of WHO guideline developed with GRADE and commissioned systematic reviews

研究了多少人、动物或样本？

not applicable

实际发现了什么？

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.

观察到的效应有多大？

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.

研究结果对日常生活意味着什么？

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

该研究有哪些局限？

Recommendations rest partly on low-certainty evidence

它对 Elawady 的具体说法说明了什么？

Supports the resistance concern; does not quantify human harm.

研究结果是否适用于德国和欧洲？

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

从该研究中明确不能得出什么结论？

Not a measure of current use in any country.

科学细节 →

研究人员想了解什么？

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

研究是如何开展的？

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

研究了多少人、动物或样本？

100 samples (25 per tissue)

实际发现了什么？

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%.

观察到的效应有多大？

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%.

研究结果对日常生活意味着什么？

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

该研究有哪些局限？

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

它对 Elawady 的具体说法说明了什么？

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

研究结果是否适用于德国和欧洲？

Not applicable to EU production.

从该研究中明确不能得出什么结论？

Cannot show any health effect.

科学细节 →

研究人员想了解什么？

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

研究是如何开展的？

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

研究了多少人、动物或样本？

395 pork samples; Retail pork from 36 stores

实际发现了什么？

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

观察到的效应有多大？

Proportions, 95% CI

研究结果对日常生活意味着什么？

Not about chicken.

该研究有哪些局限？

Pork, not poultry

它对 Elawady 的具体说法说明了什么？

Limits the claim.

研究结果是否适用于德国和欧洲？

Moderate.

从该研究中明确不能得出什么结论？

Says nothing about chicken.

科学细节 →

研究人员想了解什么？

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

研究是如何开展的？

EU regulation

研究了多少人、动物或样本？

Not applicable; EU animal feed

实际发现了什么？

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.

观察到的效应有多大？

Not applicable

研究结果对日常生活意味着什么？

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

该研究有哪些局限？

Therapeutic and prophylactic veterinary use regulated separately (not covered)

它对 Elawady 的具体说法说明了什么？

Limits the claim for the EU.

研究结果是否适用于德国和欧洲？

Directly EU.

从该研究中明确不能得出什么结论？

Does not cover therapeutic use.

科学细节 →

研究人员想了解什么？

Antibiotic residues in chicken tissues and consumer risk

研究是如何开展的？

Cross-sectional residue survey (HPLC) with risk assessment

研究了多少人、动物或样本？

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

实际发现了什么？

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.

观察到的效应有多大？

Descriptive; HQ

研究结果对日常生活意味着什么？

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

该研究有哪些局限？

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

它对 Elawady 的具体说法说明了什么？

Supports residue concern in Egypt; not toxicity.

研究结果是否适用于德国和欧洲？

Low (Egypt).

从该研究中明确不能得出什么结论？

Cannot generalise nationwide.

科学细节 →

研究人员想了解什么？

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

研究是如何开展的？

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

研究了多少人、动物或样本？

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

实际发现了什么？

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.

观察到的效应有多大？

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.

研究结果对日常生活意味着什么？

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

该研究有哪些局限？

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

它对 Elawady 的具体说法说明了什么？

Supports the food-chain route but limits its size.

研究结果是否适用于德国和欧洲？

Directly EU-relevant (Netherlands).

从该研究中明确不能得出什么结论？

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

科学细节 →