Evidence for the transmission of antimicrobial resistant bacteria between humans and companion animals: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".