Antimicrobial Resistance in the WHO African Region: A Systematic Literature Review 2016–2020
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a significant global public health threat. This review presents the most recent in-depth review of the situation of the main AMR types in relation to the most commonly prescribed antibiotics in the World Health Organization (WHO) African Region. Underlying genes of resistance have been analyzed where possible. A search to capture published research data on AMR from articles published between 2016 and 2020 was done using PubMed and Google Scholar, with rigorous inclusion/exclusion criteria. Out of 48003 articles, only 167 were included. Among the tested gram-negative bacteria species, Klebsiella spp. remain the most tested, and generally the most resistant. The highest overall phenotypic resistance for imipenem was reported in E. coli, whereas for meropenem, E. coli and Haemophilus spp. showed an equal resistance proportion at 2.5%. For gram-positive bacteria, Streptococcus pneumoniae displayed high resistance percentages to trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (64.3%), oxacillin (32.2%), penicillin (23.2%), and tetracycline (28.3%), whereas Staphylococcus aureus contributed to 22.8% and 10% resistance to penicillin and oxacillin, respectively. This review shows that AMR remains a major public health threat. The present findings will help public health decision-makers in developing efficient preventive strategies and adequate policies for antibiotic stewardship and surveillance in line with the global action plan for AMR.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".