A meta-analysis of the proportion of animal Salmonella isolates resistant to drugs used against human salmonellosis in Ethiopia

Table 2 Sampling, isolation and antimicrobial test methods

Author	Sampling method	Number of animals	Sample matrices	Number of samples	Method of isolation^b	Number of drugs	Drug test^c
[17]^a	all	323	f, m, ad	1292	ISO	17	mic
[18]^a	all	119	f, m, ad, l, s	714	ISO	17	mic
[19]	rs	204	f, m, ad, l, s	1224	ISO	24	mic
[12]	rs	101	c, m, ad, l, t	501	ISO	24	mic
[13]^a	all	278	c, m, cs	833	ISO	24	mic
[20]	rs	100	r, c, m, cs, h, hs	788	ISO	24	mic
[21]	rs	186	i, m, l, cs	744	ISO	8	dzi
[22]	rs	195	f, ml	390	ISO	10	dzi

ad = abdominal and diaphragmatic muscles; cs = carcass swab; rs = random sampling; c = caecal contents; dzi = diameter of zone of inhibition; f = feces; h = hide; hs = hand swabs at flaying and evisceration; i = intestinal contents; l = liver; m = mesenteric lymph nodes; mic = minimum inhibitory concentration; ml = milk; s = spleen; r = rumen contents; t = tongue.
^aAll animals slaughtered on each sampling day were sampled.
^bThe bacterial isolation and identification methods were according the International Organization for Standardization (ISO-6579, 1998–2002) [12,13,17-22] and Quinn et al. (Clinical Veterinary Microbiology, printed from1994-2004) [12,13,17-21], and GSS (Global Salmonella Surveillance) and NHS (National Health Service for Wales) [22].
^cThe interpretative standards were according to the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards (NCCLS, 1990–2005) [12,13,17-19,21,22] and Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI, 2005) [20]; the susceptibility break point levels for ciprofloxacin resistance were < = 0.125 μg/ml [12,13]; < = 0.5 μg/ml [18] and < = 1 μg/ml [17] but not reported in three studies[19,20,22], and the resistance break point levels were > = 1 μg/ml [18] and > = 4 μg/ml [17] but not tested [12,13] and not reported in others [19,20,22].

ISSN: 1471-2334