IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0323313.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Unraveling the global landscape of Elizabethkingia antibiotic resistance: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Saade Abdalkareem Jasim
  • Jaafaru Sani Mohammed
  • Rangaswamy Roopashree
  • Mohammad Y Alshahrani
  • Aanchal Sharma
  • Abhishek Sharma
  • Shodiyev Asliddin
  • Masoumeh Beig

Abstract

Background: The emergence of antibiotic-resistant Elizabethkingia strains poses a significant challenge in clinical settings. This systematic review and meta-analysis provide a comprehensive assessment of the prevalence of antibiotic resistance among Elizabethkingia isolates across different regions worldwide. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus from 1998 to January 9, 2024, using predefined search strategies. Eligible studies reporting antibiotic resistance in Elizabethkingia were included. A random-effects model was applied to estimate resistance proportions and assess heterogeneity. Additional analyses, including meta-regression, subgroup evaluations, and assessments of outliers and influential studies, were performed to explore resistance trends and evaluate publication bias. Study quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist, and all statistical analyses were conducted using R with the metafor package. Results: A total of 1,016 articles were identified, of which 34 studies (47 reports) met the inclusion criteria. The pooled analysis indicated high resistance to ceftazidime (88.5% of isolates, 95% CI: 21.1%–99.5%) with no significant heterogeneity. Resistance to rifampin was 12.5% (95% CI: 5.9%–24.7%), showing substantial heterogeneity, while ciprofloxacin resistance was 27.9% (95% CI: 13.8%–48.4%) with considerable heterogeneity. Among specific antibiotics, cefotaxime resistance was 96.1% (220 isolates), meropenem resistance was 92.4% (353 isolates), and gentamicin resistance was 77.7% (356 isolates). Additionally, sulfamethoxazole resistance was 46.1% (176 out of 360 isolates, 95% CI: 23.5%–70.4%), displaying significant heterogeneity. Conclusion: This study highlights the widespread antibiotic resistance in Elizabethkingia, underscoring the urgent need for targeted treatment strategies and enhanced surveillance programs. The findings emphasize the importance of monitoring local resistance patterns to guide clinical decision-making. Future research should focus on elucidating resistance mechanisms and genetic diversity to develop practical therapeutic approaches and mitigate the global health impact of Elizabethkingia infections.

Suggested Citation

  • Saade Abdalkareem Jasim & Jaafaru Sani Mohammed & Rangaswamy Roopashree & Mohammad Y Alshahrani & Aanchal Sharma & Abhishek Sharma & Shodiyev Asliddin & Masoumeh Beig, 2025. "Unraveling the global landscape of Elizabethkingia antibiotic resistance: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(5), pages 1-14, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0323313
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0323313
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0323313
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0323313&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0323313?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0323313. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.