Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36372895›Full record

ArticleAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2022

The potential for the double risk of rabies and antimicrobial resistance in a high rabies endemic setting: detection of antibiotic resistance in bacterial isolates from infected dog bite wounds in Uganda.

Stevens Kisaka, Fredrick E Makumbi, Samuel Majalija, Moses Muwanga, S M Thumbi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Antimicrobial resistance and infection control, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Rabies research in Uganda - A scoping review.One health (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025
    Review
  5. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Stevens KisakaUniversity of Nairobi Institute of Tropical and Infectious Diseases, Nairobi, Kenya. bmkstevens@gmail.com.
Fredrick E MakumbiSchool of Public Health, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Samuel MajalijaCollege of Veterinary Medicine, Animal Resources and Biosecurity, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda.
Moses MuwangaDepartment of Medicine, Entebbe General Referral Hospital, Entebbe, Uganda.
S M ThumbiUniversity of Nairobi Institute of Tropical and Infectious Diseases, Nairobi, Kenya.
Makerere University · UGUniversity of Nairobi · KEMinistry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries · UG

Funding

Wellcome Trust 107768/Z/15/ZWellcome Trust 110330/Z/15/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPost-exposure treatment for dog bites in humans aims at alleviating the risk of rabies and promoting wound healing. Wound healing may be complicated by bacteria. This study identified the different bacteria and their antibiotic susceptibilities in infected dog bite wounds (DBWs) in Uganda.

methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted among 376 dog bite patients. Wound swabs from patients with infected DBWs were collected and inoculated into recommended media. They were cultured for both aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. All isolated bacteria were identified based on colony characteristics, gram stain, and standard biochemical tests. Molecular identification was performed for strains that were resistant to three or more antibiotics. Antibiotic susceptibility testing was conducted using the disc diffusion method following the modified Kirby-Bauer method. The data were analysed using Stata version 15 software.

resultsApproximately half of the patients (52.9%, 199/376) presented with infected wounds. Majority of the swabs (84.4%, 168/199) were culture positive, and yielded a total of 768 isolates where about half (52.9%, 406/768) were gram positive bacteria, and about two-thirds (64.6%, 496/768) were recovered from category II wounds. Among the gram positive bacteria, 339 (83.5%) were aerobes where Staphylococcus aureus (103, 30.4%), Coagulase-negative staphylococci (68, 20.1%), and Corynebacterium spp (33, 9.7%) had the highest prevalence. For the 362 Gram negative isolates, 217 (59.9%) were aerobes and the commonest isolates were P. maltocida (64, 29.5%), Capnocytophaga canimorsus (36, 16.6%) and P. canis (26, 12.0%). Gram-positive isolates were resistant to metronidazole (93.6%), oxacillin (68.5%), ceftriaxone (14.6%) and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (14.0%). Gram negative isolates were resistant to metronidazole (100%), ampicillin (30.7%), oxacillin (29.3%), and doxycycline (22.9%). Multidrug resistance was in 105 (29.0%) and 121/406 (29.8%) of the gram-negative and gram-positive isolates, respectively. All gram-positive isolates were susceptible to vancomycin and ciprofloxacin.

conclusionsInfection rates of DBWs in Uganda are high and the dominant bacterial isolates are Staphylococcus aureus, Pasteurella spps, and Capnocytophaga canimorsus. Multidrug resistance to commonly used antibiotics is high. The recommendation in the Uganda Clinical Guidelines to use metronidazole in the management of DBWs should be reviewed. DBWs should be enlisted for routine antimicrobial resistance surveillance and rational use of antimicrobial agents should be promoted.

Indexed as

RabiesStaphylococcal InfectionsAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacteriaCapnocytophagaCross-Sectional StudiesDogsDrug Resistance, BacterialGram-Positive BacteriaHumansMetronidazoleMicrobial Sensitivity TestsOxacillinStaphylococcus aureusUgandaAnti-Bacterial AgentsMetronidazoleOxacillinAntimicrobial resistanceAntimicrobialsDog bite woundPost-expsoure treatmentRabiesWound infection

Identifiers

PMID36372895
PMCPMC9655799
OpenAlexW4309044030

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.