Cited by 14Antimicrobial Resistance in StaphylococcusAntibiotic Use and ResistanceOtolaryngology and Infectious Diseases

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Epidemiology of Staphylococcus aureus Infections in Kenya: Current State, Gaps and Opportunities

Open access

Abstract

Staphylococcus aureus has maintained its clinical relevance as a major cause of hospital and community acquired infections globally with a high burden of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Though reported, the burden of infection, antimicrobial resistance and molecular epidemiology of S. aureus are not well defined in Kenya. This descriptive review evaluated reported data on the detection and characterization of S. aureus infections in Kenya. Published data between 2000 and 2020 were evaluated. S. aureus isolation frequencies varied from 1% in blood specimens to 52.6% among skin and soft tissues infections while MRSA rates ranged from 1% to 84.1%. While penicillin resistance has consistently been high, last line and recent antibiotics such as vancomycin, linezolid, teicoplanin and daptomycin have retained their efficacy. Data on MRSA carriage in the community, among HCWs and inpatients is limited. Global clones (CC1, CC5, CC8, CC22, CC30, CC45 and CC239) alongside a few novel MRSA strains have been reported with staphylococcal protein A (spa) sequence based clustering yielding four major clusters (spa CC359, spa CC005, spa CC121 and spa CC021) in circulation. MRSA strain ST239/241 (t037) seems predominant in the country. Despite a clear paucity of data, the present analysis points to a high infection and AMR burden in S. aureus with global MRSA clones in circulation. Standardized national surveillance and reporting incorporating molecular tools for identification and characterization will help fill existing gaps in the understanding of the evolving epidemiology of MRSA infections.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4236/ojmm.2020.104018

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The most prevalent MRSA genotypes in SSA have been demonstrated to be ST5, ST8, ST15, ST88, ST152, ST241, and ST239.

    “Moreover, the most prevalent genotypes have been demonstrated to be ST5, ST8, ST15, ST88, ST152, ST241, and ST239.162,[169][170][171]”

    From Antimicrobial Resistance Rates and Surveillance in Sub-Saharan Africa: Where Are We Now? (2022) · cites this paper as [170]

    Section 4.3 (page unavailable) describes ST239/241 as the dominant MRSA strain in Kenya and identifies ST8 and ST152 among dominant strains there; it also reports ST88 as a suggested predominant strain in Tanzania. It does not establish the seven listed genotypes as the most prevalent MRSA genotypes across sub-Saharan Africa. In fact, section 4.3 says the observed ST5 isolates were not MRSA, and the cited passages do not identify ST15 as a prevalent MRSA genotype. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 47

  1. 10.1128/CMR.00134-14 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61999-1 · DOI
  3. 10.1080/21505594.2018.1426965 · DOI
  4. 10.1371/journal.pone.0068024 · DOI
  5. 10.1371/journal.pone.0212131 · DOI
  6. 10.1371/journal.pone.0189621 · DOI
  7. 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00348 · DOI
  8. 10.1099/acmi.0.000018 · DOI
  9. 10.1089/mdr.2014.0238 · DOI
  10. 10.1186/1471-2180-7-98 · DOI
  11. 10.1136/adc.2003.026781 · DOI
  12. 10.4314/eamj.v87i2.60592 · DOI
  13. 10.1016/j.ijid.2012.09.006 · DOI
  14. 10.4236/ojmm.2016.61003 · DOI
  15. 10.1371/journal.pone.0147659 · DOI
  16. 10.1186/2047-2994-3-22 · DOI
  17. 10.1016/j.jhin.2011.09.009 · DOI
  18. 10.1186/s12879-014-0669-y · DOI
  19. 10.1186/s13104-018-3337-2 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1186/s12879-019-4245-3 · DOI
  21. 10.1186/s12866-019-1597-1 · DOI
  22. 10.1186/s12941-016-0171-z · DOI
  23. 10.4236/ojmm.2013.31002 · DOI
  24. 10.1155/2019/8321834 · DOI
  25. Ojulong, J., Mwambu, T., Jolobo, M., Agwu, E., Bwanga, F., Najjuka, C., et al. (2008) Prevalence of Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) among Isolates from Surgical Site Infections in Mulago Hospital-Kampala, Uganda. Internet Journal of Infectious Diseases, 7, 34-45.
  26. 10.21203/rs.3.rs-16889/v1 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340198296_Prevalence_antimicrobial_susceptibility _and_genotypic_characteristics_of_Staphylococcus_aureus_in_Tanzania_a_systematic_review · DOI
  27. 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00791 · DOI
  28. 10.1128/AAC.01756-10 · DOI
  29. 10.1186/s13756-019-0551-1 · DOI
  30. 10.5897/JMA2012.0232 · DOI
  31. 10.1155/2018/5058390 · DOI
  32. 10.1186/s13104-018-3353-2 · DOI
  33. 10.1155/2019/4157869 · DOI
  34. 10.1186/1471-2334-14-363 · DOI
  35. 10.1016/S1473-3099(08)70097-5 · DOI
  36. 10.1186/s13756-018-0382-5 · DOI
  37. 10.1128/AAC.05325-11 · DOI
  38. 10.1186/s12879-019-4652-5 · DOI
  39. 10.1371/journal.pone.0155512 · DOI
  40. 10.1186/s12879-019-4368-6 · DOI
  41. 10.1128/AAC.01542-18 · DOI
  42. 10.1590/1678-4685-gmb-2019-0065 · DOI
  43. 10.3389/fcimb.2019.00170 · DOI
  44. 10.3389/fcimb.2019.00170 · DOI
  45. 10.1016/S1473-3099(12)70238-4 · DOI
  46. 10.1371/journal.pone.0096119 · DOI
  47. 10.1099/0022-1317-51-6-516 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Nyasinga, J., Omuse, G., John, N., Nyerere, A., Abdulgader, S., Newton, M., Whitelaw, A., & Revathi, G.
Affiliations
  • Technical University of Kenya (KE)
  • Aga Khan University Hospital Nairobi (KE)
  • Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology (KE)
  • Stellenbosch University (ZA)
Corresponding author
Revathi, Gunturu
Venue
Open Journal of Medical Microbiology
Published
2020
Volume
10
Issue
04
Pages
204-221
ISSN
  • 2165-3372 (ISSN-L)
  • 2165-3380
OpenAlex
W3112372917
Cited by
14
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4
FWCI
0.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Open Journal of Medical Microbiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • eCommons - AKU (Aga Khan University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antimicrobial Resistance in Staphylococcus
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antibiotic Use and Resistance
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Otolaryngology and Infectious Diseases
Keywords
Staphylococcus aureus, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, antimicrobial resistance, Kenya, molecular epidemiology, spa typing, penicillin resistance, skin and soft tissue infections, MRSA carriage, healthcare workers, infection surveillance, nosocomial infections, community-acquired infections

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review