The prevalence and risk of mortality associated with antimicrobial resistance within nosocomial settings—a global systematic review and meta-analysis of over 20,000 patients
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Bacterial antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a leading cause of death globally. However, there has been no data synthesis on whether it influences mortality within hospital settings. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify the prevalence and risk of mortality associated in hospitalised patients with AMR, compared to patients with infections not classified as AMR. Methods Databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane library) were searched from inception up to 14th April 2025 for studies that reported the prevalence of AMR in patients who acquired infections in hospitals and mortality (PROSPERO CRD42023420609). We calculated pooled prevalence estimates of AMR as well as unadjusted and adjusted estimates of the effect of AMR on mortality using a random-effects model. Study quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Quality Appraisal Tool, risk of bias using DOI plots and LFK index and certainty of evidence of mortality using GRADE criteria. Findings We identified 34 studies (20,658 patients with resistant organisms) from 18 countries–namely the USA, China, the UK, Canada, Israel, Japan, Malaysia, Korea, Brazil, and Singapore. Of these, 33 were observational studies whilst two studies (one observational study and one purely modelling study) mechanistically modelled risk of mortality in relation to transmission. No studies were conducted in the African subcontinent, the Middle-East, Russia, and India. The prevalence of AMR was high in patients in hospital (pooled prevalence: 36.5%, 95% CI: 29%–44%, I 2 = 99%) and associated with higher mortality (unadjusted pooled risk ratio [RR]: 1.64, 95% CI: 1.37–1.97, I 2 = 96.22%, τ 2 = 0.20; adjusted pooled RR: 1.58, 95% CI: 1.33–1.87, I 2 = 85.9%, τ 2 = 0.13) compared to non-AMR organisms. Sensitivity analyses showed particularly elevated risks for in-hospital mortality and for AMR-associated bacteraemia. Study quality was generally rated to be high, but there was evidence of publication bias in estimates of both prevalence and mortality. Overall certainty of evidence of mortality was graded to be low. Interpretation AMR is highly prevalent within hospital settings globally and associated with increased in-hospital mortality. Crucially, no data was identified from the India subcontinent, African subcontinent, the Middle East, and Russia, and only two studies used mechanistic modelling to explore how transmission of AMR affects mortality. Further research is required, particularly in underrepresented regions to inform interventions aimed at reducing both AMR transmission and its related mortality within hospital settings. Funding Pacific Life.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».