<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>13</volume><submitter>Albini E</submitter><pubmed_abstract>Bivalves are filter-feeding animals able to accumulate contaminants and microorganisms, either of marine or terrestrial origin. The aim of this study was to describe the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in bacterial isolates from bivalves using a systematic review of the literature. Comprehensive searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science were carried out, based upon a registered protocol (PROSPERO), and following the preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using a modified Hoy checklist. Meta-analyses of prevalence were carried out using random-effects models. In total, 103 articles were selected from 1,280 records and were included in the final analysis. The st</pubmed_abstract><journal>Frontiers in microbiology</journal><pagination>1040568</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC9751792</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><pubmed_title>A systematic review and meta-analysis on antimicrobial resistance in marine bivalves.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC9751792</pmcid><pubmed_authors>Magistrali CF</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Albini E</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Leoni F</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Orso M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Sacchini L</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Cozzolino F</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>A systematic review and meta-analysis on antimicrobial resistance in marine bivalves.</name><description>Bivalves are filter-feeding animals able to accumulate contaminants and microorganisms, either of marine or terrestrial origin. The aim of this study was to describe the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in bacterial isolates from bivalves using a systematic review of the literature. Comprehensive searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science were carried out, based upon a registered protocol (PROSPERO), and following the preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using a modified Hoy checklist. Meta-analyses of prevalence were carried out using random-effects models. In total, 103 articles were selected from 1,280 records and were included in the final analysis. The st</description><dates><release>2022-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2022</publication><modification>2025-04-04T12:01:43.271Z</modification><creation>2025-02-19T03:00:08.206Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC9751792</accession><cross_references><pubmed>36532500</pubmed><doi>10.3389/fmicb.2022.1040568</doi></cross_references></HashMap>