Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31036061›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2019

Bacterial isolation and antibiotic susceptibility from diabetic foot ulcers in Kenya using microbiological tests and comparison with RT-PCR in detection of S. aureus and MRSA.

Daniel M Mutonga, Marianne W Mureithi, Nancy N Ngugi, Fredrick C F Otieno

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Global prevalence of macrolide-resistantFrontiers in microbiology · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Antibacterial Activity ofInfection and drug resistance · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Speciation and antifungal susceptibility ofThe Pan African medical journal · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Methicillin-ResistantPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  18. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel M MutongaInstitute of Tropical and Infectious Diseases, College of Health Sciences, University of Nairobi, P.O Box 19676-00202, Nairobi, Kenya. danielmutonga@gmail.com.
Marianne W MureithiKAVI-Institute of Clinical Research, P.O Box 19676-00202, Nairobi, Kenya.
Nancy N NgugiDepartment of Medicine, Kenyatta National Hospital, P.O. Box 20723-00202, Nairobi, Kenya.
Fredrick C F OtienoDepartment of Clinical Medicine and Therapeutics, College of Health Sciences, University of Nairobi, P.O Box 19676-00202, Nairobi, Kenya.
University of Nairobi · KEKenyatta National Hospital · KE

Funding

Kenyatta National Hospital Research and Programs Department Med/101/2017
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDiabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) often lead to hospital admissions, amputations and deaths; however, there is no up-to-date information on microbial isolates from DFUs and no mention of utilization of molecular techniques in Sub-Saharan Africa. We conducted a cross-sectional study among 83 adult patients at a tertiary hospital in Kenya over 12 months. The study aimed to isolate, identify bacteria, their antibiotic susceptibility patterns in active DFUs, and to compare standard microbiological methods versus a real-time PCR commercial kit in the detection of Staphylococcus aureus DNA and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) DNA.

resultsEighty swabs (94%) were culture-positive; 29% were Gram-positive and 65% were Gram-negative. The main organisms isolated were S. aureus (16%), Escherichia coli (15%), Proteus mirabilis (11%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (7%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (7%). The bacterial isolates showed resistance to commonly used antibiotics such as ampicillin, amoxicillin, cefepime, ceftazidime, cefuroxime, clindamycin, erythromycin, piperacillin-tazobactam, tetracycline and trimethoprim-sulphamethoxazole (TMPSMX). Thirty-one percent of the S. aureus isolated and 40% of the Gram-negatives were multi-drug resistant organisms (MDROs). There was a high prevalence of nosocomial bacteria. MRSA were not identified using culture methods but were identified using PCR. PCR was more sensitive but less specific than culture-based methods to identify S. aureus.

Indexed as

Drug Resistance, Multiple, BacterialAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacterial InfectionsBacterial Typing TechniquesCephalosporinsClindamycinCross-Sectional StudiesDiabetic FootEscherichia coliHumansKenyaKlebsiella pneumoniaeMacrolidesMethicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureusMicrobial Sensitivity TestsPenicillinsAnti-Bacterial AgentsCephalosporinsClindamycinMacrolidesPenicillinsSulfanilamidesDiabetic foot ulcersKenyaMethicillin-resistant S. aureusMulti-drug resistant organismsPolymerase chain reaction

Identifiers

PMID31036061
PMCPMC6489269
OpenAlexW2943247440

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.