Evidence Hub

Nasopharyngeal Carriage Rate, Risk Factors, and Co-Resistance Patterns of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Ethiopia: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Endalamew SG, Kebede SA, Assefa SK, Zegeye AT, Abate BJ, Asgedom DK, Taye EA, Andargie EM et al.

MicrobiologyOpen, 2026

6,869 participants

Abstract

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nasopharyngeal carriage is a major global health concern linked to severe infections and transmission. However, comprehensive evidence on the burden of MRSA carriage, antimicrobial resistance, and associated risk factors in Ethiopia remains limited. This study aimed to estimate pooled prevalence, resistance pattern, and determinants of nasopharyngeal MRSA carriage. PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and gray literature were searched for cross-sectional studies published between January 2015 and December 2025. Two groups of reviewers screened studies based on predefined criteria. The risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool. Pooled prevalence and resistance proportions were estimated using a random-effects model, and pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed, and a sensitivity analysis was conducted. A total of 1040 records were identified, and 20 studies (6869 participants) were included. The pooled carriage prevalence was 7.3% (95% CI, 5.0-10.8), with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 95.5%). Resistance was highest to tetracycline (55.75%) and lowest to clindamycin (12.66%). Increased odds of carriage were associated with prior hospitalization (OR, 3.49) and antibiotic use (OR, 2.35). Inconsistent variable coding across included studies limited the inclusion of other potential risk factors.…

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: 6,869 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