Evidence Hub

Infection in patients with burn injury: sources, pathogens, sensitivity, and role of empirical antibiotics therapy

Olawoye OA, Isamah CP, Ademola SA, Michael AI, Iyun AO, Aderibigbe RO, Oluwatosin OM

Wounds : a compendium of clinical research and practice, 2025

364 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Infection in the patient with burn injury is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Clinicians in low- and middle-income countries are often left with no option other than to commence empirical antibiotics.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the magnitude of infection in patients with burn injury, the sources of these infections, the prevalent microorganisms and their sensitivity pattern, and the sensitivity of the microorganisms to empirical therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective observational study was conducted in a regional burn center in western Nigeria between October 2010 and March 2020.

RESULTS: A total of 364 patients were included in the study, with males constituting 58.5% (213) of the patients and females 41.5% (151) of the patients. The median patient age was 22 years. Flame was the most common cause of burn injury (61.5% [n = 224]). The median total body surface area burn was 22%. The majority of the patients had a clinical diagnosis of infection (85.4% [n = 311]), with the burn wound (60.8%), respiratory tract (22.2%), and urinary tract (6.1%) constituting the clinical sources of the infection. The most prevalent causes of burn wound infection were Klebsiella pneumoniae (K pneumoniae) (30.2%), Staphylococcus aureus (S aureus) (24.3%), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P aeruginosa) (21.0%). All cultured bacteria with the exception of Citrobacter freundii were sensitive to amikacin, with K pneumoniae and S aureus being the most sensitive to…

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: 364 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