Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31869354›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Evaluation of antibiotic susceptibility patterns of pathogens isolated from routine laboratory specimens at Ndola Teaching Hospital: A retrospective study.

Warren Chanda, Mespa Manyepa, Ephraim Chikwanda, Victor Daka, Justin Chileshe, Mathias Tembo, Joseph Kasongo, Allen Chipipa, Ray Handema, John A Mulemena

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Warren ChandaMulungushi University, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Livingstone, Zambia.ORCID 0000-0001-7305-979X
Mespa ManyepaCopperbelt University, School of Medicine, Ndola, Zambia.
Ephraim ChikwandaTropical Diseases Research Centre, Ndola, Zambia.
Victor DakaCopperbelt University, School of Medicine, Ndola, Zambia.
Justin ChilesheTropical Diseases Research Centre, Ndola, Zambia.
Mathias TemboTropical Diseases Research Centre, Ndola, Zambia.
Joseph KasongoDepartment Pathology, Ndola Teaching Hospital, Ndola, Zambia.
Allen ChipipaDepartment Pathology, Ndola Teaching Hospital, Ndola, Zambia.
Ray HandemaTropical Diseases Research Centre, Ndola, Zambia.
John A MulemenaMulungushi University, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Livingstone, Zambia.
Tropical Diseases Research Centre · ZMCopperbelt University · ZMMulungushi University · ZMNorthrise University · ZM

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Periodic monitoring of antibiotic susceptibility patterns in clinical settings is vital to ascertain the potency as well as re-establishing empirical therapy. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the antibiotic susceptibility patterns of pathogens isolated from routine laboratory specimens at Ndola Teaching Hospital. A retrospective study was conducted on routine specimens received between May 2016 and July 2018. Specimens were cultured on standard media and Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion method was used for susceptibility testing in accordance with the Clinical and Laboratory Standard Institute's recommendations. A total of 693 specimens were analyzed, of which 65.9% (457) specimens came from inpatient departments and 49.1% (340) came from female patients. The commonest specimens were urine (58.6%), blood (12.7%) and wound swabs (8.5%), and the most common microorganisms were coliform (29.3%), Staphylococcus aureus (15.4%), coagulase negative Staphylococci (CoNS, 13.4%), and Escherichia coli (13%). The highest percentage of resistance to any particular antibiotic was co-trimoxazole (91.7%, 33) followed by nalidixic acid (75.2%, 279), norfloxacin (69.0%, 100), ceftazidime (55.7%, 185), nitrofurantoin (46.6%, 191), chloramphenicol (43%, 111) and ciprofloxacin (8.6%, 271). Furthermore, patient location had resistance effect on coliform (p = 0.014), CoNS (p = 0.031), Streptococcus species (p = 0.024) and Klebsiella species (p = 0.004) to nitrofurantoin, ceftazidime, nitrofurantoin and chloramphenicol, respectively. Besides coliform, resistance of Enterobacter species to ceftazidime and Proteus species to nalidixic acid were more from female patients. Generally, the most effective antibiotics were chloramphenicol and nitrofurantoin with addition of ceftazidime on blood pathogens and ciprofloxacin on wound swab pathogens. The common isolates were coliform, S. aureus, coagulase negative Staphylococci and Escherichia coli. The resistance of most bacteria to ceftazidime and nitrofurantoin were influenced by both gender and location. Our study presents a broad overview of the resistance profiles of bacterial isolates. However, more nosocomial prevalence and antibiogram studies on individual routine specimens are required to provide a more detailed picture of resistance patterns.

Indexed as

Drug Resistance, BacterialAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacteriaBacterial InfectionsFemaleHumansMaleMicrobial Sensitivity TestsMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesYoung AdultAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID31869354
PMCPMC6927611
OpenAlexW2995713175

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.