↓ Skip to main content

Prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli O157 in beef at butcher shops and restaurants in central Ethiopia

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Microbiology, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
150 Mendeley
Title
Prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibility of Escherichia coli O157 in beef at butcher shops and restaurants in central Ethiopia
Published in
BMC Microbiology, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12866-017-0964-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ashenafi Feyisa Beyi, Akafete Teklu Fite, Ephrem Tora, Asdesach Tafese, Tadele Genu, Tamirat Kaba, Tariku Jibat Beyene, Takele Beyene, Mesula Geloye Korsa, Fanos Tadesse, Lieven De Zutter, Bruno Maria Goddeeris, Eric Cox

Abstract

Ethiopia bears the largest burden of foodborne diseases in Africa, and diarrheal diseases are the second leading causes of premature deaths. Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli O157 causes an asymptomatic infection to severe diarrhea and/or hemolytic-uremic syndrome in humans. A total of 440 beef carcass and in-contact surface swabs from 55 butcher shops and 85 minced beef samples from 40 restaurants in central Ethiopia were collected and examined for the presence of E. coli O157. Standard microbiological methods were used to isolate and identify E. coli O157 and to characterize the antimicrobial resistance of the isolates. E. coli O157 was detected in 4.5% carcass swabs (n = 5) and 3.6% cutting board swabs (n = 4) samples from butcher shops. E. coli O157 was not detected in any of the minced beef samples obtained from restaurants. All isolates (n = 9) were 100% susceptible to five drugs, but five isolates were resistant to amoxicillin, two isolates to streptomycin and three isolates to chloramphenicol. One isolate was resistant to two drugs and another to three drugs. The present study shows a low prevalence of E. coli O157 in beef sold at butcher shops. Nevertheless, given the low infective dose of this pathogen and the deep-rooted tradition of consuming raw or undercooked beef, the current prevalence should not be considered lightly from a public health perspective.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 150 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 150 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 15%
Researcher 17 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 9%
Lecturer 10 7%
Student > Bachelor 9 6%
Other 21 14%
Unknown 57 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 22 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 5%
Environmental Science 6 4%
Other 21 14%
Unknown 60 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 December 2017.
All research outputs
#20,418,183
of 22,968,808 outputs
Outputs from BMC Microbiology
#2,701
of 3,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,669
of 310,492 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Microbiology
#46
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,968,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,206 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,492 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.