Changing antibiotic susceptibility pattern in uropathogenic Escherichia coli over a period of 5 years in a tertiary care center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shobha Prasada,1,2 Archana Bhat,1,2 Sevitha Bhat,1,2 Shalini Shenoy Mulki,1,2 Sanyuktha Tulasidas1,21Department of Microbiology, Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India; 2Manipal McGill Center for Infectious Diseases, Prasanna School of Public Health, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, IndiaObjective: To assess the changing antibiotic sensitivity pattern in Uropathogenic E. coli over a period of time (2013–2017) with a special emphasis on ESBL-producing E. coli.Methods: This retrospective study was carried out in the Department of Microbiology, Kasturba Medical College, Ambedkar Circle, Mangalore. A retrospective time bound analysis of 500 samples/year was performed. The urine samples received from the suspected cases of urinary tract infection (UTI) were processed. Wet mount examinations of urine samples were done. The urine culture was done by a semi-quantitative method on Mac Conkey’s agar, Cysteine Lactose Electrolyte Deficient (CLED) medium, and UTI Chrome agar. Culture plates were incubated for 18–24 hours at 37°C. Urine samples with a colony count of ≥105, CFU/ml were considered significant. The uropathogens were identified by their biochemical reactions. The antibiotic susceptibility testing (AST) was carried out using a Vitek Compact 2 system and Modified Kirby Bauer disc diffusion method.Results: Antibiotic resistance of Uropathogenic E.coli to cephalosporins increased from 51 to 58%, Cotrimoxazole: 52 to 59%, Piperacillin tazobactam 9.4 to 23%, Carbapenems 0 to 5.9%. Antibiotic resistance to netilmicin has reduced from 8 to 6.5%, and norfloxacin 59 to 48%. The rates of ESBL production have increased from 45.2 to 59.6% in the 5 years.Conclusion: The increasing antibiotic resistance trends in UTI patients indicate that it is vitally important to use them conservatively. Proper guidelines, management of antibiotic usage, and constant information to the clinicians regarding the sensitivity pattern can help to prevent drug resistance.Keywords: uropathogenic E.coli, antibiotic resistance, UTI, trends
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".