Evidence Hub

Risk factors for antimicrobial-resistant Enterobacterales in dogs: a systematic review

Karalliu E, Chung KY, MacKinnon B, Haile B, Beczkowski PM, Barrs VR, Elsohaby I, Nekouei O

Frontiers in veterinary science, 2024

7 citations

Abstract

Identifying risk factors associated with the carriage of antimicrobial-resistant (AMR) bacteria in dogs is crucial to understanding their epidemiology and for developing and refining targeted control measures. However, relevant data is scattered and conflicting findings have been reported. This systematic review aimed to compile risk factors associated with the carriage of AMR-Enterobacterales in dogs worldwide and to identify relevant knowledge gaps for directing future research. A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines, searching PubMed, CABi, and Scopus databases for studies reporting risk factors for acquiring AMR-Enterobacterales in dogs. After screening peer-reviewed, English-language studies by title/abstract, eligible studies were subjected to a full-text assessment, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment, and qualitative synthesis. In the initial search, 774 articles were identified, including 274 duplicates. After screening by title/abstract, 77 articles were subjected to full-text review, from which 40 were eventually selected for data extraction, including 29 cross-sectional, six cohort, and five case-control studies. The most frequently investigated risk factors for AMR-Enterobacterales carriage in dogs were antimicrobial use (28 of 40), age (24), sex (22), hospitalization (19), and feeding raw diet (14). Of these, antimicrobial use was the most common risk factor significantly associated with AMR-Enterobacterales (19/28), followed by…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free