Evidence for the transmission of antimicrobial resistant bacteria between humans and companion animals: A scoping review
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Transmission of antimicrobial resistant bacteria between people and household pets, such as dogs and cats, is an emerging global public health problem. This scoping review synthesized existing evidence of human-pet bacteria transmission to understand the magnitude and breadth of this issue. The search included specific and generic terms for bacteria, resistance, transmission, pets, and humans. Searches were conducted through PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CABI Global Health, Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations, Google Scholar. All studies published in English and Mandarin that isolated bacteria from pets (cats and dogs) and humans who had contact with the pets, and reported phenotypic or genotypic antimicrobial sensitivity test results, were included in this review. In cases of bacterial species that are commonly associated with pets, such as Staphylococcus pseudintermedius and Pasteurella multocida, we also included studies that only isolated bacteria from humans. After removing duplication, the search captured 9355 studies. A total of 1098 papers were screened in the full-text review, and 562 studies were identified as eligible according to our inclusion criteria. The primary reason for exclusion was the lack of sensitivity testing. The included studies were published between 1973 and 2021. The most common study location was the United States (n = 176, 31.3%), followed by the United Kingdom (n = 53, 9.4%), Japan (n = 29, 5.2%), and Canada (n = 25, 4.4%). Most of the included studies were case reports (n = 367, 63.4%), cross-sectional/prevalence studies (n = 130, 22.4%), and case series (n = 51, 8.8%). Only few longitudinal studies (n = 14, 2.4%), case-control studies (n = 12, 2.1%), and cohort studies (n = 5, 0.9%) were included in our review. Most studies focused on Pasteurella multocida (n = 221, 39.3%), Staphylococcus aureus (n = 81, 14.4%), and Staphylococcus pseudintermedius (n = 52, 8.9%). For the 295 studies that used strain typing methods to compare bacteria from humans and pets, most used DNA banding pattern-based methods (n = 133, 45.1%) and DNA sequencing-based methods (n = 118, 40.0%). Transmission of bacteria could occur in both directions: pets to humans (e.g., S. pseudintermedius and P. multocida) and humans to pets (e.g., S. aureus). The majority of studies provided a low level of evidence of transmission (e.g., case reports), suggesting that more rigorous longitudinal, cohort, or case-control studies are needed to fully understand the risk of human-pet resistant bacterial transmission.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle