Evidence Hub

Antibiotic resistance patterns of outpatient pediatric urinary tract infections

Rachel S. Edlin, Daniel J. Shapiro, Adam L. Hersh, Hillary L. Copp

The Journal of Urology, 2013

232 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE: We characterize the current national patterns of antibiotic resistance of outpatient pediatric urinary tract infection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined outpatient urinary isolates from patients younger than 18 years in 2009 using The Surveillance Network®, a database with antibiotic susceptibility results and patient demographic data from 195 United States hospitals. We determined the prevalence and antibiotic resistance patterns for the 6 most common uropathogens, ie Escherichia coli, Proteus mirabilis, Klebsiella, Enterobacter, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterococcus. We compared differences in uropathogen prevalence between males and females using chi-square analysis. RESULTS: We identified 25,418 outpatient urinary isolates. E. coli was the most common uropathogen overall but the prevalence of E. coli was higher among females (83%) than males (50%, p <0.001). Other common species among males were Enterococcus (17%), P. mirabilis (11%) and Klebsiella (10%). However, these uropathogens each accounted for 5% or less of female isolates (p <0.001). Resistance among E. coli was highest for trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (24%) but lower for nitrofurantoin (less than 1%) and cephalothin (15%). Compared to 2002 Surveillance Network data, E. coli resistance rates increased for trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (from 23% to 31% in males and from 20% to 23% in females) and ciprofloxacin (from 1% to 10% and from 0.6% to 4%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: E. coli remains the most…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free