ArticleScientific reports2024
Biofilm formation and antibiogram profile of bacteria from infected wounds in a general hospital in southern Ethiopia.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Infections in Burn Patients: Pathophysiology, Prevention, and Contemporary Therapeutic Strategies in the Era of Antimicrobial Resistance.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2026Review
- The role of microbial biosurfactants in enhancing wound repair: a comprehensive review.Folia microbiologica · 2026Review
- Biofilms in clinical infection: pathophysiology, diagnosis, and the evolving therapeutic landscape.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2026Review
- In vitro and in vivo antibacterial activities and phytochemical screening of 80% methanol extract from Ehretia cymosa leaves.PloS one · 2026Article
- SEMTWIST Quantification of Biofilm Infection in Human Chronic Wound Using Scanning Electron Microscopy and Machine Learning.Advances in wound care · 2025Article
- Article
- Bacteriophage as an anti-biofilm agent against Pseudomonas aeruginosa from wound infection.PloS one · 2025Article
- Impact ofCurrent research in microbial sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Biofilm-producing bacteria associated with wound infections exhibit exceptional drug resistance, leading to an escalation in morbidity, worse clinical outcomes (including delay in the healing process), and an increase in health care cost, burdening the whole system. This study is an attempt to estimate the prevalence and the relationship between the biofilm-forming capacity and multi-drug resistance of wound bacterial isolates. The findings intended to help clinicians, healthcare providers and program planners and to formulate an evidence-based decision-making process, especially in resource-limited healthcare settings. This study was done to assess the prevalence of bacterial infections in wounds and the antibiogram and biofilm-forming capacity of those bacteria in patients with clinical signs and symptoms, attending a General Hospital in southern Ethiopia. A cross-sectional study was performed in Arba Minch General Hospital from June to November 2021. The study participants comprised 201 patients with clinically infected wounds. Demographic and clinical data were gathered via a structured questionnaire. Specimens from wounds were taken from each participant and inoculated onto a series of culture media, namely MacConkey agar, mannitol salt agar, and blood agar, and different species were identified using a number of biochemical tests. Antimicrobial susceptibility tests were performed by means of the Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion technique following the guidelines of the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. A micro-titer plate method was employed to detect the extent of biofilm formation. Bivariable and multivariable logistic regression models were applied to analyse the association between dependent and independent variables, and P values ≤ 0.05 were considered as statistically significant. Data analyses were done with Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 25. Out of the 201 clinically infected wounds, 165 were found culture-positive with an overall prevalence of 82% (95% CI: 75.9-86.9). In total, 188 bacteria were recovered; 53.1% of them were Gram-positive cocci. The often-isolated bacterial species were Staphylococcus aureus, 38.3% (n = 72), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, 16.4% (n = 31). The Gram-positive isolates showed considerable resistance against penicillin, 70%, and somewhat strong resistance against tetracycline, 57.7%. Gram-negative isolates showed severe resistance to ampicillin, 80.68%. The overall multi-drug resistance (MDR) among isolates was 48.4%. Extended beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Gram-negatives and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) accounted for 49 and 41.67%, respectively; 62.2% of the isolates were biofilm formers and were correlated statistically with MDR, ESBL producers, and MRSA (P < 0.005). The extent of biofilm formation and the prevalence of MDR bacteria associated with infected wounds hint at a public health threat that needs immediate attention. Thus, a more balanced and comprehensive wound management approach and antimicrobial stewardship program are essential in the study setting.
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.