Carriage of third-generation cephalosporin-resistant and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales among children in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The increasing resistance of Enterobacterales to third-generation cephalosporins and carbapenems in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is a major public health concern. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies to estimate the carriage prevalence of Enterobacterales not susceptible to third-generation cephalosporins or carbapenems among paediatric populations in SSA. Methods We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional and cohort studies to estimate the prevalence of childhood (0–18 years old) carriage of extended-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacterales (ESCR-E) or carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) in SSA. Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies published from 1 January 2005 to 1 June 2022. Studies with <10 occurrences per bacteria, case reports, and meta-analyses were excluded. Quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa scale. Meta-analyses of prevalences and odds ratios were calculated using generalised linear mixed-effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed using I 2 statistics. The protocol is available on PROSPERO (CRD42021260157). Findings Of 1111 studies examined, 40 met our inclusion criteria, reporting on the carriage prevalence of Enterobacterales in 9408 children. The pooled carriage prevalence of ESCR-E was 32.2% (95% CI: 25.2%–40.2%). Between-study heterogeneity was high (I 2 = 96%). The main sources of bias pertained to participant selection and the heterogeneity of the microbiological specimens. Carriage proportions were higher among sick children than healthy ones (35.7% vs 16.9%). The pooled proportion of nosocomial acquisition was 53.8% (95% CI: 32.1%–74.1%) among the 922 children without ESCR-E carriage at hospital admission. The pooled odds ratio of ESCR-E carriage after antibiotic treatment within the previous 3 months was 3.20 (95% CI: 2.10–4.88). The proportion of pooled carbapenem-resistant for Enterobacterales was 3.6% (95% CI: 0.7%–16.4%). Interpretation This study suggests that ESCR-E carriage among children in SSA is frequent. Microbiology capacity and infection control must be scaled-up to reduce the spread of those multidrug-resistant microorganisms. Funding There was no funding source for this study.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".