Evidence Hub

Fluoroquinolone Resistance in Campylobacter Isolates from Broiler Meat: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis at a Global Scale

Mandel, Tiina, Condoleo, Roberto, Zarea, Aya A.K., Mäesaar, Mihkel, Roasto, Mati, Reinik, Mari, Alba, Patricia, Iulietto, Maria Francesca

Figshare, 2025

Abstract

Campylobacter spp. and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) pose global public health threats. Approximately nine million cases of illness per year are attributed to Campylobacter, mainly associated with broiler meat consumption. Furthermore, nearly five million deaths annually are attributed to the ‘silent pandemic’ of AMR. Considering this, the exposure to resistant Campylobacter spp. represents a global concern to be addressed. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to estimate the prevalence of fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter in broiler meat at the retail level. A comprehensive systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA protocol by mapping fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter from broilers. The review covers the period from 2003 to 2024 without geographical restrictions. Data regarding Campylobacter species, processing stage (retail, processing plant, slaughterhouse), and the matrix (meat, skin, or mixed) were extracted. In addition to systematic review, we conducted meta-analyses to compare the pooled AMR prevalence by continents and other variables. Over half of the tested Campylobacter isolates at the retail level are fluoroquinolone- resistant, with considerable differences across regions. The highest values were from South and Central America (CIP 79%; NAL 85%) and North Africa (CIP 74%; NAL 96%), while the lowest value was observed in North America (CIP 15%; NAL 26%) and Oceania (CIP 11%; NAL 13%). In Europe, a clear trend for resistance rise…

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