Evidence Hub

Antimicrobial resistance of Staphylococcus aureus isolated from bovine mastitis: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Molineri AI, Camussone C, Zbrun MV, Suárez Archilla G, Cristiani M, Neder V, Calvinho L, Signorini M

Preventive veterinary medicine, 2021

Abstract

Staphylococcus aureus, one of the main contagious mastitis pathogens worldwide, is characterized for causing chronic intramammary infections that respond poorly to antimicrobial therapy, disseminating within the herd leading to high economic losses. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of phenotypic resistance to antimicrobial agents among S. aureus collected worldwide in the context of bovine intramammary infections between the years 1969-2020. A systematic review was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). One hundred and fifty-five articles were eligible for quantitative review. Most of studies included in this meta-analysis were from Europe (88), followed by Asia (56), Latin America (39), Africa (32), North America (26), and Oceania (8). The highest overall prevalence of resistant S. aureus was against penicillin (pestimate 0.451, CI95 % 0.415-0.487), followed by clindamycin, erythromycin, and gentamycin (p-estimate = 0.149, 0.085, and 0.069, respectively). Ceftiofur and cephalotin presented the lowest overall prevalence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR, p-estimate = 0.020 and 0.015, respectively). The AMR to almost all the antimicrobials evaluated presented an increasing pattern over time, more apparent from 2009 onwards. The antimicrobials with a higher increase in their AMR prevalence over time were clindamycin, gentamycin, and oxacillin. Africa, Asia and Latin America were the continents…

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