Evidence Hub

Prevalence, Antimicrobial Susceptibility Pattern, and Associated Factors of Urinary Tract Infections among Pregnant and Nonpregnant Women at Public Health Facilities, Harar, Eastern Ethiopia: A Comparative Cross-Sectional Study

D. Abate, Dadi Marami, Shiferaw Letta

The Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale, 2020

651 participants · 18 citations

Abstract

Background Urinary tract infection is one of the most common health problems worldwide, afflicting many women in reproductive age, especially in developing countries. Increased risk of infection has been attributed to pregnancy and antimicrobial resistance. Objective To compare the prevalence, antimicrobial susceptibility pattern of the bacteria and associated factors of urinary tract infections among pregnant and nonpregnant women attending public health facilities, Harar, Eastern Ethiopia. Methods A health facility-based comparative cross-sectional study was conducted among 651 randomly selected women from public health facilities, Harar, Eastern Ethiopia, between February 2017 and December 2017. Pertinent data were collected through a face-to-face interview using a structured questionnaire. The midstream urine specimen was collected and cultured on cysteine-lactose-electrolyte-deficient agar and blood agar. Pure isolates were tested against the ten most prescribed antimicrobials using the Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion method. Data were entered and analysed using Statistical Program for Social Sciences version 21. A p value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results The overall prevalence of significant bacteriuria was 23% (95% CI: 13.6, 26.8). The higher proportion of bacteria were isolated from pregnant women (14.1%) compared to nonpregnant women (8.9%). Escherichia coli (28.8%) and Streptococcus aureus (14.3%) were the most common isolates. E. coli was…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cross-sectional, done in people. Its evidence level is 4 of 5 (Low · observational). Observational designs can show an association but not prove cause. Reported size: 651 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