Evidence Hub

The Distribution and the Antimicrobial Susceptibility Features of Microorganisms Isolated From the Burn Wounds: A 10-Year Retrospective Analysis

Özkaçmaz A, Dicle Y, Bayram Y, Parlak M, Akış F, Çallı İ

Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association, 2024

293 participants

Abstract

In this study, we aimed to evaluate the distribution features and antimicrobial susceptibility test results of the microorganisms isolated from the wounds of pediatric and adult patients with burn. The culture and susceptibility test results of the microorganisms, isolated from the wound swabs of the patients hospitalized in a tertiary-burn care center in 10-year period, were retrospectively screened on the microbiology department databases. Their distribution of isolated microorganisms regarding species and susceptibility test results were compared with previous studies. A total of 367 microorganisms, isolated from the burn wounds of 293 patients (13 ± 18.9 years, F/M: 0.93) (73 adults and 220 pediatric patients), were included in this study. A solitary agent was isolated in 239 (81.6%) patients, while 2 were isolated in 43 (14.7%) and 3 or more agents in 11 (3.8%). From these, 33% of the isolated microorganisms were gram-positive cocci, 61% were gram-negative bacteria, and 6% were Candida spp. The most common isolated microorganisms were Staphylococcus aureus (18.5%), Pseudomonas spp. (16.9%), and Escherichia coli (11.2%), while the least common was Streptococcus spp. (2.5%). Methicillin resistance was 15% among the S. aureus strains. No resistance was observed against levofloxacin, vancomycin, teicoplanin, linezolid, daptomycin, fusidic acid, and tigecycline in S. aureus strains. The highest resistance rates were observed against levofloxacin (64%), tobramycin (64%),…

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: 293 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