Abstract
BackgroundThe scientific publications of antimicrobial susceptibilities and resistance must be precise, with interpretations adjusted to the standard. In this frame, knowledge of antimicrobial resistance is fundamental in pathogenic microorganisms such as Salmonella spp., known for many annual deaths worldwide. The objective of this work was to compare the interpretation of standards, the concentrations, and the breakpoints, to study antimicrobial resistance in Non-Typhoidal Salmonella (NTS) isolated from beef, pork, and chicken meat, meat products, and propose additional considerations that improve the use and usefulness of published results.ResultsAfter refining the search based on meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 48 papers were selected. In 33 (68.8%) of them, the disc diffusion method was used, in 11 (22.9%) the MIC determination method, and in 4 (8.33%) were used both. In 24 (50%) of the articles, the selection of a different (correct) standard could have had an impact on the interpretation of antimicrobial susceptibility, which observed when considering three scenarios, i) comparison between the year of the isolation versus the implemented standard, ii) comparison between the year of submission versus implemented standard and iii) comparison between the year of publication versus implemented standard.ConclusionsThe most frequent scenario was the inadequate selection of standards, indicating that some studies had not ensured that applied standards kept in line with the date of isolation, date of publication and interpretation of susceptibilities. We proposed 2 years for standards use for resistance and multi-resistance interpretations. On the other hand, we invite researchers to publish their results in the shortest possible time, and editors and reviewers of scientific journals to prioritise these types of studies and verify the correspondence between the standard cited and the one used and the one to be taken into account.
Highlights
The scientific publications of antimicrobial susceptibilities and resistance must be precise, with interpretations adjusted to the standard
Abbreviations for antimicrobial agent reported in the different selected articles and standardized abbreviation and color used for each antimicrobial class in this work
Antimicrobial resistance monitoring programmes assess isolation of interest associated with foodborne diseases (FBD) against a range of antibiotics of importance in humans [1] to understand the dynamics of microorganisms in a community
Summary
The scientific publications of antimicrobial susceptibilities and resistance must be precise, with interpretations adjusted to the standard In this frame, knowledge of antimicrobial resistance is fundamental in pathogenic microorganisms such as Salmonella spp., known for many annual deaths worldwide. The first the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Epidemiological Cut-off Values (ECV) In this test, “the MIC value or zone diameter value separates microbial populations into those with and without acquired and or mutational resistance, based on their phenotypes (wildtype [WT] or non-wild-type [NWT]); the ECV defines the upper limit of susceptibility for the wild-type population of isolates” [8]. In this test, “values separate the naive, susceptible wild-type bacterial populations from isolates that have developed reduced susceptibility to a given antimicrobial agent. The ECOFFs may differ from breakpoints used for clinical purposes, which are set out against a background of clinically relevant data, including therapeutic indication, clinical response data, dosing schedules, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics” [9]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
