0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Antimicrobial resistance in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence in foods, food handlers, animals, and the environment

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has been recognized as one of the greatest global threats for human and animal health. The present review retrieved up to date information on the epidemiology of AMR in the animal-source food chain in Ethiopia focusing on AMR in bacterial species isolated from food handlers, live animals, foods (animal origin and non-animal origin), and in environmental samples. Accordingly, pooled prevalence of AMR in the different sources was estimated. For data analysis, we used random effect meta-analysis and in order to avoid exclusion of studies with zero prevalence of antimicrobial resistance, Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation was applied. We identified 152 eligible studies and retrieved 4097 data records (183 in food handlers, 2055 in foods, 1040 in live animals and 819 for environmental samples) which together reported a total of 86,813 AMR tests with 64 different antimicrobial disks for 81 bacteria species. We present the pooled prevalence of AMR for major bacterium-antibiotic combination in different sample types. The pooled prevalence of AMR in bacteria from food producing live animals was 20%. High estimates of AMR pooled prevalence were found in bacteria identified from milk, food handlers and the environmental samples with 29%, and 28% in meat. In foods of non-animal origin, the prevalence was lower with 13%. In milk, the highest AMR estimate was found for penicillin (69%) followed by amoxicillin (51%). Regarding multi-drug resistance (MDR), the overall pooled prevalence was 74% among AMR positive samples. Microbes reported having a higher MDR pattern were: Staphylococcus spp. (96%), Salmonella spp. (81%) and Escherichia coli (77%). The present review revealed a high resistance against commonly used drugs for animal and human treatments and/or prophylaxis. In conclusion, the high estimate of prevalence of AMR observed in bacteria recovered from different sample sources related to the animal-source food chain (food, live animal and environment) can highlight the possible linkage among them. The MDR levels in several bacteria species are a clear indication that the threat is directed to many antimicrobials. Our review demonstrated that the high overall AMR resistance levels call for effective policy and intervention measures, which best address the problem along the food chain through a One Health approach.

          Highlights

          • Meta-analysis of antimicrobial resistance conducted from One Health perspectives.

          • Pooled prevalence of AMR for bacterium-antibiotic combination in different sample was reported.

          • Comparable high AMR prevalence estimates were found from milk, food handler and the environment.

          • MDR prevalence was 74%, and higher estimate in E. coli, Staphylococcus, Salmonella and Shigella.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

          Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

            The extent of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis partly determines the difficulty in drawing overall conclusions. This extent may be measured by estimating a between-study variance, but interpretation is then specific to a particular treatment effect metric. A test for the existence of heterogeneity exists, but depends on the number of studies in the meta-analysis. We develop measures of the impact of heterogeneity on a meta-analysis, from mathematical criteria, that are independent of the number of studies and the treatment effect metric. We derive and propose three suitable statistics: H is the square root of the chi2 heterogeneity statistic divided by its degrees of freedom; R is the ratio of the standard error of the underlying mean from a random effects meta-analysis to the standard error of a fixed effect meta-analytic estimate, and I2 is a transformation of (H) that describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity. We discuss interpretation, interval estimates and other properties of these measures and examine them in five example data sets showing different amounts of heterogeneity. We conclude that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity. One or both should be presented in published meta-analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Meta-analysis in clinical trials.

              This paper examines eight published reviews each reporting results from several related trials. Each review pools the results from the relevant trials in order to evaluate the efficacy of a certain treatment for a specified medical condition. These reviews lack consistent assessment of homogeneity of treatment effect before pooling. We discuss a random effects approach to combining evidence from a series of experiments comparing two treatments. This approach incorporates the heterogeneity of effects in the analysis of the overall treatment efficacy. The model can be extended to include relevant covariates which would reduce the heterogeneity and allow for more specific therapeutic recommendations. We suggest a simple noniterative procedure for characterizing the distribution of treatment effects in a series of studies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                One Health
                One Health
                One Health
                Elsevier
                2352-7714
                29 June 2021
                December 2021
                29 June 2021
                : 13
                : 100286
                Affiliations
                [a ]International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), P.O. Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
                [b ]Sekota Dryland Agricultural Research Center, P.O. Box 62, Sekota, Ethiopia
                [c ]College of Veterinary Medicine and Agriculture, Addis Ababa University, P.O. Box 34, Bishoftu, Ethiopia
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author at: International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), P.O. Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. b.a.gemeda@ 123456cgiar.org
                Article
                S2352-7714(21)00076-8 100286
                10.1016/j.onehlt.2021.100286
                8260865
                34258373
                af906340-4932-451c-808d-f76f3fd4101b
                © 2021 The Author(s)

                This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

                History
                : 27 November 2020
                : 1 June 2021
                : 25 June 2021
                Categories
                Review Paper

                systematic review,meta-analysis,ethiopia,amr,prevalence,mdr,one health

                Comments

                Comment on this article