Evidence Hub

High burden of urinary tract infections and antimicrobial resistance among menopausal women in Jos, Nigeria

Hezekiah Yusuf Azi, Anuoluwapo O. Blessing, Anayochukwu Chibuike Ngene, H.J. Zumbes, Ocheme Julius Okojokwu, Henry Gabriel Bishop, Eleyi Rosemary Ameh, Patricia Lar

Discover Public Health, 2026

139 participants

Abstract

Menopausal women are at increased risk of urinary tract infections (UTIs) due to estrogen deficiency–associated urogenital changes. Rising antimicrobial resistance (AMR) among uropathogens further complicates empirical therapy, particularly in low- and middle-income settings. This study investigated the prevalence, bacterial profile, antimicrobial susceptibility patterns, and associated risk factors of UTIs among menopausal women attending Plateau Specialist Hospital, Jos, Nigeria. A cross-sectional study was conducted among 139 menopausal women aged 45–66 years. Midstream urine samples were collected from subjects with symptoms suggestive of urinary tract infections and cultured using standard microbiological techniques. Isolates were identified by biochemical characterization. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed using the Kirby–Bauer disk diffusion method according to CLSI guidelines. Risk factors were assessed using structured questionnaires and analyzed statistically. Out of the 139 urine samples analyzed, 90 were culture-positive, yielding an overall UTI prevalence of 64.7%. The highest prevalence was observed among women aged 55–59 years (86.4%). Escherichia coli was the predominant uropathogen, followed by Staphylococcus aureus , Klebsiella spp., and Pseudomonas spp. Ciprofloxacin and pefloxacin demonstrated the greatest activity against the predominant Gram-negative isolates, whereas Proteus spp. and Streptococcus spp. exhibited 100% resistance to…

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: 139 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