Evidence Hub

Etiology and antimicrobial resistance of uncomplicated urinary tract infections

Bertoni G, Pessacq P, Guerrini MG, Calmaggi A, Barberis F, Jorge L, Bonvehi P, Temporiti E et al.

Medicina, 2017

138 participants

Abstract

Uncomplicated urinary tract infections rank among the most frequent bacterial infections in women in the outpatient setting and represent a major cause of antimicrobial prescription. The aims of this study were to assess frequencies and antimicrobial resistance of current uropathogens causing uncomplicated urinary tract infection. In a prospective multicenter study, patients were recruited in ambulatory settings of four participating hospitals between June 2011 and December 2013. We analyzed 138 patients that met clinical and bacteriological diagnostic criteria. The mean age was 28 years. Cystitis was defined in 70% (n: 97) and pyelonephritis in 30% (n: 41). Frequencies of isolated microorganisms were: Escherichia coli 70% (n: 97), Staphylococcus saprophyticus 17% (n: 24), Proteus spp. 7% (n: 10), Klebsiella spp. 4% (n: 5), Enterococcus spp. and Pseudomonas aeruginosa 1 (0.7%) each. The antimicrobial resistance was: ampicillin-sulbactam 37% (n: 51) cephalexin 28% (n: 39), trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole 22% (n: 31), nitrofurantoin 12% (n: 17), gentamicin 7% (n: 10) and ciprofloxacin 5% (n: 7). The levels of resistance found for ampicillin-sulbactam, trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and cephalexin were higher than those previously reported in Argentina. A better knowledge of the etiology and local antimicrobial susceptibility allows the design of more adequate guidelines for empirical treatment.

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. Reported size: 138 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