TY - JOUR
T1 - Corrigendum to ‘Fluoroquinolone sales in food animals and quinolone resistance in non-typhoidal Salmonella from retail meats
T2 - United States, 2009–2018’ [Journal of Global Antimicrobial Resistance 29 (2022) 163-167, (Journal of Global Antimicrobial Resistance (2022) 29(163-167) (S2213716522000595), (10.1016/j.jgar.2022.03.005))
AU - Yin, Xin
AU - Dudley, Edward G.
AU - Pinto, Casey N.
AU - M'ikanatha, Nkuchia M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Authors
PY - 2022/9
Y1 - 2022/9
N2 - The authors regret that in the published article, a sentence that was meant to describe the percent of isolates resistant to quinolones from all retail meat sources was incorrectly written as “isolates from beef and pork.” The correct sentence should be “In 2009, 0.62% of Salmonella isolates from all meat samples were resistant to quinolones.” In addition, because the sample size was small, we should have removed the Pearson's correlation and added a statement, “The increase in fluoroquinolone sales did not lead to increased quinolone resistance among Salmonella isolates from beef and pork." This is because the Pearson's test could be negatively affected by the sample size and the prevalence of resistance was mainly in poultry meat. In light of these changes, we have modified the highlights as follows: 1) Nontyphoidal Salmonella resistant to fluoroquinolone drugs were isolated from retail meats in the U.S.2) Fluoroquinolones resistance in nontyphoidal Salmonella from retail chicken samples increased over the last years notwithstanding the absence of fluoroquinolones use in chicken production.3) The increase in fluoroquinolone resistance was primarily driven by more resistant Salmonella Infantis and Enteritis.The authors apologize for any inconvenience we inadvertently caused.
AB - The authors regret that in the published article, a sentence that was meant to describe the percent of isolates resistant to quinolones from all retail meat sources was incorrectly written as “isolates from beef and pork.” The correct sentence should be “In 2009, 0.62% of Salmonella isolates from all meat samples were resistant to quinolones.” In addition, because the sample size was small, we should have removed the Pearson's correlation and added a statement, “The increase in fluoroquinolone sales did not lead to increased quinolone resistance among Salmonella isolates from beef and pork." This is because the Pearson's test could be negatively affected by the sample size and the prevalence of resistance was mainly in poultry meat. In light of these changes, we have modified the highlights as follows: 1) Nontyphoidal Salmonella resistant to fluoroquinolone drugs were isolated from retail meats in the U.S.2) Fluoroquinolones resistance in nontyphoidal Salmonella from retail chicken samples increased over the last years notwithstanding the absence of fluoroquinolones use in chicken production.3) The increase in fluoroquinolone resistance was primarily driven by more resistant Salmonella Infantis and Enteritis.The authors apologize for any inconvenience we inadvertently caused.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85136275416&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85136275416&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jgar.2022.07.016
DO - 10.1016/j.jgar.2022.07.016
M3 - Comment/debate
C2 - 36088081
AN - SCOPUS:85136275416
SN - 2213-7165
VL - 30
SP - 489
JO - Journal of Global Antimicrobial Resistance
JF - Journal of Global Antimicrobial Resistance
ER -