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 |
- 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].
