SynthesisPLoS neglected tropical diseases2025
Insights into Haemophilus macrolide resistance: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Resistance to Lefamulin: An Evaluation of Data from In Vitro Antimicrobial Susceptibility Studies.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- From Widespread Use to Loss of Effectiveness: The Consequences of Inappropriate Azithromycin Prescriptions During the COVID-19 Pandemic-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of microbiology · 2026Review
- Epidemiological and comparative genomic analysis of pathogenicFrontiers in microbiology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHaemophilus spp., particularly Haemophilus influenzae, are major global pathogens causing various infections. Macrolides are crucial in treating these infections, but rising resistance to macrolides in Haemophilus spp. highlights the growing threat of antimicrobial resistance (AMR).
objectiveThis study aims to assess the prevalence of macrolide resistance in Haemophilus spp, across different global regions.
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus databases from May 2015 to December 2023 to identify studies on macrolide resistance in Haemophilus spp. The review included English-language full-text articles that reported resistance proportions and sample sizes. Study quality was assessed using the JBI Critical Appraisal Tool. Statistical analysis was performed using a random-effects model using the metafor package in R.
resultsA total of 10,114 articles were retrieved, and after a comprehensive evaluation, 15 studies (from 19 reports) met the eligibility criteria for inclusion in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Most studies (eight reports from three countries) focused on clarithromycin susceptibility, revealing a pooled prevalence of 7.2%. High heterogeneity was observed for azithromycin (I² = 96.31%, p < 0.001). Azithromycin resistance was higher than clarithromycin, with a resistance rate of 9.3% (nine reports), while erythromycin resistance was significantly higher at 79% (four reports). Subgroup analysis revealed significant variations in resistance prevalence based on geographic location and continent for azithromycin, erythromycin, and clarithromycin. Additionally, notable differences were observed in resistance rates depending on antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST) methods and AST guidelines for both azithromycin and erythromycin. Clarithromycin resistance increased from 0.7% (2015-2019) to 12.6% (2020-2023).
conclusionThe study underscores the significant challenges of macrolide resistance in treating Haemophilus spp. infections. Additionally, ongoing surveillance of resistance patterns and exploring contributing factors are crucial to enhancing treatment effectiveness.
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.