ArticleInternational wound journal2024
Antimicrobial resistance is not increasing in subsequent cases of ischaemic foot infections, a single-centre cohort from 2012 to 2021.
Article in International wound journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Antimicrobial resistance is not increasing in subsequent cases of ischaemic foot infections, a single-centre cohort from 2012 to 2021.International wound journal · 2024Article
- Antimicrobial resistance is not increasing in subsequent cases of ischaemic foot infections, a single-centre cohort from 2012 to 2021.International wound journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI) are at risk of foot infections, which is associated with an increase in amputation rates. The use of antibiotics may lead to a higher incidence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in subsequent episodes of ischaemic foot infections (IFI). This retrospective single-centre cohort study included 130 patients with IFI undergoing endovascular revascularisation. Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were the two most common pathogens, accounting for 20.5% and 10.8% of cases, respectively. The prevalence of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and multi-drug resistance did not significantly increase between episodes (10.2% vs. 13.4%, p = 0.42). In 59% of subsequent episodes, the identified pathogens were unrelated to the previous episode. However, the partial concordance of identified pathogens significantly increased to 66.7% when S. aureus was identified (p = 0.027). Subsequent episodes of IFI in the same patient are likely to differ in causative pathogens. However, in the case of S. aureus, the risk of reinfection, particularly with S. aureus, is increased. Multi-drug resistance does not appear to change between IFI episodes. Therefore, recommendations for empirical antimicrobial therapy should be based on local pathogen and resistance statistics without the need to broaden the spectrum of antibiotics in subsequent episodes.
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.