Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40727509›Full record

ArticleThe Pan African medical journal2025

Multiple antibiotic resistance indexing and molecular identification of

Doubra Otis Isaiah, Kome Otokunefor, Obakpororo Ejiro Agbagwa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Pan African medical journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

3 authors.

Doubra Otis IsaiahDepartment of Microbiology, Faculty of Science, Niger Delta University, Bayelsa State, Nigeria.
Kome OtokuneforDepartment of Microbiology, Faculty of Science, University of Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria.
Obakpororo Ejiro AgbagwaDepartment of Microbiology, Faculty of Science, University of Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: the emergence of antibiotic resistance in E. coli strains has led to a variety of clinical illnesses in both humans and animals, with consequences for human health and the environment. Methods: this cross-sectional study was conducted to determine the risk of increased antibiotic resistance by calculating the multiple antibiotic resistance (MAR) index of E. coli in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria. A higher MAR index close to 1 was interpreted as having a higher level of antibiotic resistance, while a lower MAR index close to 0 is an indicative of little to no resistance. In this study, a total of 200 samples from clinical (urine and stool) and non-clinical sources (soil and poultry) were randomly collected following ethical approval. Escherichia coli was isolated on Eosin Methylene Blue agar and identified using standard biochemical tests. The antimicrobial susceptibility profile was determined using the disk diffusion methodology with Mueller-Hinton agar according to the instructions of the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI). Escherichia coli isolates were amplified in this investigation using a 16s rRNA gene-based polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique. Results: for both 73% clinical (n=100) and 35% non-clinical (n=100) isolates, amoxicillin/clavulanic acid showed the highest rate of resistance with 82.2% (60 of 73) and 100% (35 of 35) respectively, whereas nitrofurantoin showed the lowest rate of resistance at 1.4% (1 of 73) clinical and no resistance was found for the nonclinical E. coli isolates. The study presumptively finds a higher resistance to 4 drug classes, with 42%, and the lowest of 1% to 6 drug classes of antibiotics. Additionally, MAR indices > 0.2 were observed in this study, which indicates excessive use of antibiotics. MAR index of 0.4 was the most frequent, with a 25% prevalence. The results of this investigation show that a MAR index of 0.4 suggests widespread antibiotic resistance, with 25% of the bacterial isolates from both sources exhibiting resistance to the tested antibiotics. A MAR index > 0.2 in this study indicates that 14.8% of the E. coli isolates were ineffective against the tested antibiotics. The bacteria isolates in this study have developed resistance to multiple antibiotics if the MAR index is greater than 0.2, which is an indication of overuse or inappropriate antibiotic use. The genotypic test verified 82.9% non-clinical E. coli (found in environmental soil and poultry samples) and 82.2% clinical E. coli (found in patient urine and stool samples). In this study, E. coli isolates were genotypically identified using the 16s rRNA gene. Conclusion: the high levels of MAR indices in E. coli as presented in this study could be indicative of antibiotic treatment failures in both clinical and nonclinical settings, which can serve as a potential reservoir of drug-resistant E. coli that are harmful and therefore require continuous monitoring.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsDrug Resistance, Multiple, BacterialEscherichia coliEscherichia coli InfectionsAdolescentAdultAnimalsCross-Sectional StudiesFecesFemaleHumansMaleMicrobial Sensitivity TestsMiddle AgedNigeriaPolymerase Chain ReactionAnti-Bacterial AgentsRNA, Ribosomal, 16SAntibiotic resistanceEscherichia colimolecular identificationNigeriaPort Harcourt

Identifiers

PMID40727509
PMCPMC12296668

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.