4.6 Review

Clinical and economic impact of antibiotic resistance in developing countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 12, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189621

关键词

-

资金

  1. Antimicrobial Research Unit
  2. College of Health Sciences of the University of KwaZulu-Natal
  3. National Research Foundation South African Research Chair in Antibiotic Resistance and One Health Grant [98342]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction Despite evidence of the high prevalence of antibiotic resistant infections in developing countries, studies on the clinical and economic impact of antibiotic resistance (ABR) to inform interventions to contain its emergence and spread are limited. The aim of this study was to analyze the published literature on the clinical and economic implications of ABR in developing countries. Methods A systematic search was carried out in Medline via PubMed and Web of Sciences and included studies published from January 01, 2000 to December 09, 2016. All papers were considered and a quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale (NOS). Results Of 27 033 papers identified, 40 studies met the strict inclusion and exclusion criteria and were finally included in the qualitative and quantitative analysis. Mortality was associated with resistant bacteria, and statistical significance was evident with an odds ratio (OR) 2.828 (95% CI, 2.231 -3.584; p = 0.000). ESKAPE pathogens was associated with the highest risk of mortality and with high statistical significance (OR 3.217; 95% CIs; 2.395- 4.321; p = 0.001). Eight studies showed that ABR, and especially antibiotic-resistant ESKAPE bacteria significantly increased health care costs. Conclusion ABR is associated with a high mortality risk and increased economic costs with ESKAPE pathogens implicated as the main cause of increased mortality. Patients with non-communicable disease co-morbidities were identified as high-risk populations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据