Evidence Hub

E. coli as a uropathogen in patients with diabetes mellitus, its prevalence and antimicrobial resistance profile in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Tesfaye NA, Demessie MB, Hassen M, Solomon T, Andualem A, Gebreegziabher TL, Gobezie MY

BMC infectious diseases, 2025

2,830 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are prevalent among patients with diabetes mellitus (DM), with E. coli being the most common uropathogen. Understanding its antimicrobial resistance profile is crucial for empirical treatment, especially in resource-limited settings like Ethiopia. The study aimed to determine the prevalence of E. coli in UTIs among diabetic patients in Ethiopia and to assess its antimicrobial resistance patterns. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023445772). A comprehensive search of PubMed, Google Scholar, Hinari, SCOPUS, and EMBASE was performed for studies published between January 1, 2014, and January 19, 2024. Inclusion criteria encompassed observational studies on microbiological investigations in UTI patients with DM conducted in Ethiopia. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist. RESULTS: Eleven cross-sectional studies involving 2,830 diabetic patients were included. Among these, 492 bacterial isolates were identified, with 171 being E. coli. The pooled prevalence of UTIs caused by E. coli in diabetic patients was 52% (95% CI 36–74%, I² = 68.7%). Subgroup analysis revealed higher odds ratios in the Southern Nation Nationalities and People Region (SNNPR) and studies conducted after 2019.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 2,830 participants or records.

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