Evidence Hub

Conflict-associated wounds and burns infected with GLASS pathogens in the Eastern Mediterranean Region: A systematic review

Wild A, Shortall C, Dewachi O, Naim C, Green A, Hussain S, Abbara A

BMC infectious diseases, 2025

680 participants · 7 citations

Abstract

Background: While the relationship between conflict-associated injuries and antimicrobial resistance is increasingly being elucidated, data concerning civilian casualties is sparse. This systematic review assesses literature focused on Global Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System (GLASS) Priority Pathogens causing infections in civilian wounds and burns in conflict-affected countries within the World Health Organisation's Eastern Mediterranean Region Office (EMRO).

Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Five databases and grey literature were searched, identifying studies published from January 2010 to June 2024. Search terms included "wounds", "burns," "antimicrobial resistance", and the twelve countries of interest. Included studies reported resistance of GLASS pathogens. Two reviewers used Covidence to assess papers for inclusion. Data were extracted into a spreadsheet for analysis. Where quantitative data were available, medians, interquartile ranges and percentages were calculated by pathogen and country.

Results: 621 records were identified; 19 studies met inclusion criteria. Nine of the papers were from Iraq, three from Libya, three from Lebanon, one each from Yemen and Gaza; two reported on conflict affected refugees in Jordan. A total of 1,942 distinct microbiological isolates were reported, representing all four critical and high priority GLASS pathogen…

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: 680 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