Evidence Hub

The aetiology and antimicrobial resistance of bacterial maternal infections in Sub-Saharan Africa-a systematic review and meta-analysis

Chapuma C, Twabi HH, Monk EJM, Jafali J, Weeks A, Beales E, Kulapani D, Selemani A et al.

BMC infectious diseases, 2024

2,575 participants · 8 citations

Abstract

Background: Understanding the aetiological organisms causing maternal infections is crucial to inform antibiotic treatment guidelines, but such data are scarce from Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to address this gap.

Methods: Microbiologically confirmed maternal infection data were collected from PubMed, Embase, and African Journals online databases. The search strategy combined terms related to bacterial infection, pregnancy, postnatal period, observational studies, SSA. Exclusion criteria included colonization, asymptomatic infection, and screening studies. Pooled proportions for bacterial isolates and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) were calculated. Quality and completeness of reporting were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa and STROBE checklists.

Findings: We included 14 papers comprising data from 2,575 women from four sources (blood, urine, surgical wound and endocervical). Mixed-growth was commonly reported at 17% (95% CI: 12%-23%), E. coli from 11%(CI:10%-12%), S. aureus from 5%(CI: 5%-6%), Klebsiella spp. at 5%(CI: 4%- 5%) and Streptococcus spp. at 2%(CI: 1%-2%). We observed intra-sample and inter-sample heterogeneity between 88-92% in all meta-analyses. AMR rates were between 19% -77%, the highest with first-line beta-lactam antibiotics. Convenience sampling, and limited reporting of laboratory techniques were areas of concern.

Interpretation: We provide a comprehensive summary of microbial aetiology of maternal…

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: 2,575 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