Evidence Hub

Prevalence of antibiotic susceptibility and resistance of Escherichia coli in acute uncomplicated cystitis in Korea: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Kim JH, Sun HY, Kim TH, Shim SR, Doo SW, Yang WJ, Lee EJ, Song YS

Medicine, 2016

2,305 participants · 10 citations

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study is to determine the prevalence of antibiotic susceptibility and resistance of Escherichia coli Escherichia coli (E coli) in female uncomplicated cystitis in Korea using meta-analysis.

Methods: A cross-search of the literature was performed with MEDLINE for all relevant data published before October 2015 and EMBASE from 1980 to 2015, the Cochrane Library, KoreaMed, RISS, KISS, and DBPia were also searched. Observational or prospective studies that reported the prevalence of antimicrobial susceptibility and resistance of E coli were selected for inclusion. No language or time restrictions were applied. We performed a meta-analysis using a random effects model to quantify the prevalence of antimicrobial susceptibility and resistance of E coli.

Results: Ten studies were eligible for the meta-analysis, which together included a total of 2305 women with uncomplicated cystitis. The overall resistance rate to antibiotics was 0.28 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.25, 0.32). The pooled resistance rates were 0.08 (95% CI: 0.06, 0.11) for cephalosporin, 0.22 (95% CI: 0.18, 0.25) for fluoroquinolone (FQ), and 0.43 (95% CI: 0.35, 0.51) for trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (TMP/SMX). Regression analysis showed that resistance to FQ is increasing (P = 0.014) and resistance to TMP/SMX is decreasing (P = 0.043) by year. The generation of cephalosporin was not a significant moderator of differences in resistance rate.

Conclusion: The resistance rate of FQ in…

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: 2,305 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