MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2195313330 · doi:10.1155/2009/398264

Prevalence of Antimicrobial‐Resistant Pathogens in Canadian Hospitals: Results of the Canadian Ward Surveillance Study (CANWARD 2007)

2009· article· en· W2195313330 on OpenAlexaffabout
George G. Zhanel, James A. Karlowsky, Mel DeCorby, Kim Nichol, Aleksandra Wierzbowski, Patricia J. Baudry, Philippe Lagacé‐Wiens, Andrew Walkty, Frank Schweizer, Heather J. Adam, Melissa McCracken, Michael R. Mulvey, The Canadian Antimicrobial Resistance Alliance, Daryl J. Hoban

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntimicrobial Resistance in Staphylococcus
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of ManitobaHealth Sciences Centre
FundersWyethMerckBayer
KeywordsMicrobiologyMedicineStreptococcus pneumoniaeAntibiotic resistanceBroth microdilutionKlebsiella pneumoniaeStaphylococcus aureusMethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureusAntimicrobialEnterococcusHaemophilus influenzaeEnterobacter cloacaePseudomonas aeruginosaAntibioticsBiologyEscherichia coliBacteriaMinimum inhibitory concentration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Canadian hospitals as well as hospitals worldwide are increasingly faced with antibiotic‐resistant pathogens, including multidrug‐resistant (MDR) strains. OBJECTIVES: To assess the prevalence of pathogens, including the resistance genotypes of methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin‐resistant enterococci (VRE) and extendedspectrum beta‐lactamase (ESBL)‐producing Escherichia coli in Canadian hospitals, as well as their antimicrobial resistance patterns. MEtHODS: Bacterial isolates were obtained between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2007, inclusive, from patients in 12 hospitals across Canada as part of the Canadian Ward Surveillance Study (CANWARD 2007). Isolates were obtained from bacteremic, urinary, respiratory and wound specimens and underwent antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Susceptibility testing was assessed using the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute broth microdilution method. RESULTS: In total, 7881 isolates were recovered from clinical specimens of patients attending Canadian hospitals. The 7881 isolates were collected from respiratory (n=2306; 29.3%), blood (n=3631; 46.1%), wounds/tissue (n=617; 7.8%) and urinary (n=1327; 16.8%) specimens. The 10 most common organisms isolated from 76.5% of all clinical specimens were E coli (21.6%), methicillin‐susceptible S aureus (13.9%), Streptococcus pneumoniae (8.9%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (8.0%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (5.8%), MRSA (4.9%), Haemophilus influenzae (4.3%), coagulase‐negative staphylococci/ taphylococcus epidermidis S (4.0%), Enterococcus species (3.0%) and Enterobacter cloacae (2.1%). MRSA made up 26.0% (385 of 1480) of all S aureus (genotypically, 79.2% of MRSA were health care‐associated MRSA and 19.5% were community‐associated MRSA), and VRE made up 1.8% of all enterococci (62.5% of VRE had the van A genotype). ESBLproducing E coli occurred in 3.4% of E coli isolates. The CTX‐M type was the predominant ESBL, with CTX‐M‐15 as the predominant genotype. With MRSA, no resistance was observed to daptomycin, linezolid, tigecycline and vancomycin, while resistance rates to other agents were: clarithromycin 91.4%, clindamycin 61.8%, fluoroquinolones 88.6% to 89.6%, and trimethoprim‐sulfamethoxazole 12.2%. With E coli , no resistance was observed to ertapenem, meropenem and tigecycline, while resistance rates to other agents were: amikacin 0.1%, cefazolin 14.2%, cefepime 2.0%, ceftriaxone 8.9%, gentamicin 10.6%, fluoroquinolones 23.6% to 24.5%, piperacillin‐tazobactam 1.3% and trimethoprim‐sulfamethoxazole 26.6%. Resistance rates with P aeruginosa were: amikacin 7.6%, cefepime 11.7%, gentamicin 20.8%, fluoroquinolones 23.4% to 25.1%, meropenem 8.1% and piperacillin‐ tazobactam 7.3%. A MDR phenotype (resistance to three or more of cefepime, piperacillin‐tazobactam, meropenem, amikacin or gentamicin, and ciprofloxacin) occurred frequently in P aeruginosa (10.6%) but uncommonly in E coli (1.2%), K pneumoniae (1.5%), E cloacae (0%) or H influenzae (0%). CONCLUSIONS: E coli , S aureus (methicillin‐susceptible and MRSA), S pneumoniae , P aeruginosa , K pneumoniae , H influenzae and Enterococcus species are the most common isolates recovered from clinical specimens in Canadian hospitals. The prevalence of MRSA was 26.0% (of which genotypically, 19.5% was community‐associated MRSA), while VRE and ESBL‐producing E coli occurred in 1.8% and 3.4% of isolates, respectively. A MDR phenotype is common with P aeruginosa in Canadian hospitals.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Infectious Diseases and Medical MicrobiologySame topicAntimicrobial Resistance in StaphylococcusFrench-language works237,207