Evidence Hub

The microbiologic profile of diabetic foot infections in Turkey: a 20-year systematic review: diabetic foot infections in Turkey

Hatipoglu M, Mutluoglu M, Uzun G, Karabacak E, Turhan V, Lipsky BA

European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2014

2,097 participants

Abstract

The causative pathogens in diabetic foot infections differ in studies of European compared with Asian populations. The purpose of this study was to determine the causative microorganisms and their antibiotic sensitivity patterns in diabetic patients with a foot infection in Turkey, a country at the crossroads of these two continents. We performed a comprehensive literature search to identify all published studies pertaining to DFIs in patients cared for in Turkey. To assess changes in causative organisms and their antibiotic sensitivity patterns over time, we compared the results of just the most recent 5 years (2007-2011) with those of the past 20-years (1989-2011). We identified 31 studies meeting our inclusion criteria. Overall, these studies reported 2,097 patients, from whom 1,974 microorganisms were isolated. The total percentage of gram-negative and gram-positive aerobic bacteria were similar in each of the assessed periods. The rate of isolation of Staphylococcus aureus during the entire period, compared with just the past 5 years, was 23.8% and 19.1%, respectively, while the rate of methicillin-resistant S. aureus was 7.8% and 5.7%, respectively. The isolation rate of Pseudomonas aeruginosa was 13.7% for the entire period and 14.9% for the past 5 years. While linezolid, vancomycin and teicoplanin were the most active agents against gram-positive microorganisms, imipenem and cefoperazone-sulbactam were the most active against gram-negative microorganisms. This…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, 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: 2,097 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