Evidence Hub

Antimicrobial resistance in wild game mammals: a glimpse into the contamination of wild habitats in a systematic review and meta-analysis

Akwongo CJ, Borrelli L, Houf K, Fioretti A, Peruzy MF, Murru N

BMC veterinary research, 2025

10 citations

Abstract

Background: Wild game meat has over the years gained popularity across the globe as it is considered a food source with high protein content, low fat content, and a balanced composition of fatty acids and minerals, which are requirements for a healthy diet. Despite this popularity, there is a concern over its safety as many species of wildlife are reservoirs of zoonotic diseases including those of bacterial origin, more so antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Methods: This study aimed to describe the prevalence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in mammalian wild game, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

Results: The overall pooled prevalence of antibiotic resistance was established at 59.8% while the prevalence of multidrug resistance (MDR) was 17.2%. Resistance was reported in 32 wild game species and the meta-analysis revealed the highest prevalence of antibiotic resistance in Yersinia spp. (95.5%; CI: 76.8 - 100%) followed by Enterococcus spp. (71%; CI: 44.1 - 92%), Salmonella spp. (69.9%; CI: 44.3 - 90.0%), Staphylococcus spp. (69.3%; CI: 40.3 - 92.3%), and Escherichia coli (39.5%; CI: 23.9 - 56.4%). Most notably, resistance to highest priority, critically important antimicrobials, was recorded in all genera of bacteria studied. Additionally, a significantly higher prevalence of antibiotic resistance was observed in studies conducted in remote settings than those in the vicinity of anthropogenic activities,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

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