ArticlePloS one2024
Bacteriological analysis and antibiotic resistance in patients with diabetic foot ulcers in Dhaka.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predominance of multidrug-resistant bacteria with high resistance to empiric antibiotics in diabetic foot ulcers: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Complicated foot ulcers and high treatment costs in rural type 2 diabetic patients in vietnam: impact of infections on hospital stays.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2026Article
- Article
- Bacterial profile and antimicrobial resistance patterns of infected diabetic foot ulcers in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta‑analysis.Therapeutic advances in infectious diseaseReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The primary objective of this study was to isolate bacteria from diabetic foot ulcers and subsequently assess their antibiotic resistance capabilities. Seventy-five patients diagnosed with diabetic foot ulcers were investigated. A number of these patients (97.33%) had type 2 diabetes, with a significant proportion of them having been diagnosed for 1-5 years (29.33%). Notably, a substantial number of these individuals were on insulin usage (78.66%). Among the patients under examination, 49.33% reported having no use of tobacco products, alcohol, or betel leaf. The ulcers analyzed in this study were classified into grades 1-5 according to the Wagner scale. Wagner grade 2 diabetic foot ulcers had the highest number of culture-positive patients, at 33.33%. Pus samples collected from patients were cultured on selective media, and bacterial identity was confirmed by biochemical tests and polymerase chain reaction. A total of 141 isolates were isolated. Among the isolates, 82.97% gram-negative bacteria and 17.02% gram-positive bacteria were detected. Klebsiella pneumoniae was the most common isolate. Proteus spp., Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Staphylococcus aureus were also detected. Approximately 61.33% of the ulcers exhibited were polybacterial. In this study, it was observed that all bacterial isolates, except for Proteus spp., were primarily detected in patients classified under Wagner's grade 2. Moreover, antibiotic susceptibility was also tested on these 141 isolates. Among them, Escherichia coli showed the highest multidrug resistance, 81.81%. Most of the gram-negative bacteria were resistant to ampicillin. All of the gram-negative isolates exhibited high levels of susceptibility to piperacillin-tazobactam, and these levels were Klebsiella pneumoniae (97.56%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (95.24%), Escherichia coli (81.82%), and Proteus spp. (80%). On the other hand, gram-positive Staphylococcus aureus mostly showed sensitivity towards vancomycin and norfloxacin (79.17%).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.