Evidence Hub

Global antibiotic resistance trends in Enterococcus faecalis from animals, food, and environmental sources: A meta-analysis

Yang Y, Yeganeh R, Moghadam MA, Teymouri Z, Motallebi Tabaei F, Moradi S, Beig M

Preventive veterinary medicine, 2025

5 citations

Abstract

This systematic review investigates the prevalence of antibacterial resistance in Enterococcus faecalis outside clinical settings, focusing on animals, food, and the environment. Using a "One Health" approach connecting human, animal, and environmental health, we analyze resistance patterns across diverse geographical regions and timeframes, emphasizing the impact of geographical factors. We thoroughly searched various databases, including Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE. We assessed study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale Checklist. A random-effects model estimated resistance proportions, while meta-regression, subgroup analyses, and identification of outliers and influential studies provided additional insights. We employed R software (version 4.2.1) and the metaphor package (version 3.8.1) for comprehensive data management and analysis. Our analysis of 75 studies revealed significant variability in antibiotic resistance across countries, continents, and World Health Organization (WHO) regions in non-clinical E. faecalis. Resistance rates differed based on antibacterial agents, geographic regions, periods, and isolation sources. Resistance was highest to tetracycline, rifampicin, quinupristin-dalfopristin, doxycycline, and erythromycin (≈48-62 %). Moderate resistance was observed for streptomycin, kanamycin, ciprofloxacin, gentamicin, chloramphenicol, and linezolid (≈10-26 %). In contrast, low resistance rates (<10 %) were found for vancomycin,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, 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