Evidence Hub

Progress on implementing the WHO-GLASS recommendations on priority pathogen-antibiotic sensitivity testing in Africa: A scoping review

Hope M, Kiggundu R, Tabajjwa D, Tumwine C, Lwigale F, Mwanja H, Waswa JP, Mayito J et al.

Wellcome open research, 2024

64 participants · 5 citations

Abstract

Introduction: The World Health Organization global antimicrobial resistance surveillance system (GLASS) was rolled out in 2015 to guide antimicrobial resistance (AMR) surveillance. However, its implementation in Africa has not been fully evaluated. We conducted a scoping review to establish the progress of implementing the WHO 2015 GLASS manual in Africa.

Methods: We used MeSH terms to comprehensively search electronic databases (MEDLINE and Embase) for articles from Africa published in English between January 2016 and December 2023. The Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework for scoping reviews was employed. Data were collected on compliance with WHO GLASS recommendations for AMR surveillance-priority samples, pathogens, and pathogen-antibiotic combinations and analysed using Microsoft Excel.

Results: Overall, 13,185 articles were identified. 7,409 were duplicates, and 5,141 articles were excluded based on titles and abstracts. 609 full-text articles were reviewed, and 147 were selected for data extraction. Of the 147 selected articles, 78.9% had been published between 2020 and 2023; 57.8% were from Eastern Africa. 93.9% of articles were on cross-sectional studies. 96.6% included only one priority sample type; blood (n=56), urine (n=64), and stool (n=22). Of the 60 articles that focused on blood as a priority sample type, 71.7%, 68.3%, 68.3%, 36.7%, 30%, and 10% reported recovery of Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review. 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: 64 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