![Sample our Medicine, Dentistry, Nursing & Allied Health journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5944/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Medicine-Dentistry-Nursing-Allied-Health.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Objectives
Vibrio cholerae O1/O139 is responsible for cholera epidemics that remains a huge public health menace across the globe. Furthermore, an increasing resistance rate among V. cholerae strains has been reported around the world. Therefore, the objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the weighted pooled resistance (WPR) rates in clinical V. cholerae O1/O139 isolates based on different years, areas, antimicrobial susceptibility testing, and resistance rates.
Research design and methods
We searched the studies in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science (until January 2020). Statistical analyses were conducted using STATA software (ver. 14.0).
Results
A total of 139 studies investigating 24,062 V. cholerae O1/O139 isolates were analyzed. The majority of the studies originated in Asia (n = 102). The WPR rates were as follows: azithromycin 1%, erythromycin 36%, ciprofloxacin 3%, cotrimoxazole 79%, doxycycline 7%, and tetracycline 20%. There was increased resistance to cotrimoxazole, ciprofloxacin, and tetracycline during the 1980–2020 years.
Conclusions
Temporal changes in antibiotic resistance rate found in this study demonstrated the critical continuous surveillance of antibiotic resistance. Also, ciprofloxacin, azithromycin, gentamicin, cephalexin, imipenem, ofloxacin, and norfloxacin were found to be the best antibiotics against V. cholera, with the highest and the lowest effectiveness resistance rate.
Acknowledgement
We thank for Screening and improvement of major genes for semen traits of Henan local boars（22B230008).
Abbreviations list
(WPR) weighted pooled resistance
(WHO) world health organization
(CT) cholera toxin
(ORS) oral rehydration solution
(PRISMA) preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines
(AST) antibiotic susceptibility testing
(CI) confidence interval
(MGEs) mobile genetic elements
(ICEs) Integrating Conjugative Elements
Availability of data and material
All the data in this review are included in the manuscript.
Data availability statement
The data of the study are with the corresponding author of the article and can be made available on request.
Declaration of interest
The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.
Author contributions
CL, YW, EK, VK, and NO substantially contributed to the conception, design, drafting, interpretation of the relevant literature, and analysis of the review article of the work. AM, CL and KHA have been involved in writing and acquisition of data or revising the review article for intellectual content. All authors agreed and confirmed the manuscript for publication. All authors have agreed on the journal to which the article will be submitted and reviewed and agreed on all versions of the article before submission, during revision, the final version accepted for publication, and any significant changes introduced at the proofing stage. In addition, all authors agree to take responsibility and be accountable for the contents of the article and to share the responsibility to resolve any questions raised about the accuracy or integrity of the published work.
Reviewer disclosures
Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.
Statement of Ethics
The study protocol was by the ethical guidelines of the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki.
Supplementary material
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/14787210.2022.2098114