Skip to main content

Table 2 Sampling, isolation and antimicrobial test methods

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

Author Sampling method Number of animals Sample matrices Number of samples Method of isolationb Number of drugs Drug testc
[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
  1. 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.
  2. aAll animals slaughtered on each sampling day were sampled.
  3. 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].
  4. 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].