Evidence Hub

Microbiological analysis and antibiotic selection strategy in neck abscesses among patients with diabetes mellitus

Kong W, Zhang X, Li M, Yang H

European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2024

2,194 participants

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study aimed to analyze the clinical characteristics, pathogen distribution, drug sensitivity, and antibiotic treatment strategies of patients with neck abscesses with or without diabetes.

METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 2194 patients who underwent neck abscess surgery at our hospital over the past 13 years. Patients were grouped as NAwithDM (neck abscess with diabetes mellitus) or NAwithoutDM (neck abscess without diabetes mellitus). Clinical features, pathogen distribution, and antibiotic sensitivity were compared between the groups. Venn diagrams were used to illustrate the antibiotics effective against all three predominant pathogens.

RESULTS: A total of 2194 patients with neck abscesses were included in this study, with 579 patients (26.43%) in the NAwithDM group and 1612 patients (73.51%) in the NAwithoutDM group. There were no significant differences in sex or age distribution between the two groups (all P > 0.05). However, there were significant differences in BMI, length of hospital stays, occurrence of laryngeal obstruction, hypertension, and hypoalbuminemia between the two groups (all P < 0.05). In the NAwithoutDM group, the top three pathogens were Streptococcus constellatus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Staphylococcus aureus. The antibiotics that were simultaneously effective against all three pathogens were ceftriaxone, moxifloxacin, and ampicillin/sulbactam. In the NAwithDM group, the top three pathogens were Streptococcus…

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: 2,194 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