Research article

Determinants of bank profitability in Portugal: Insights from a period of sectoral transformation

  • Received: 18 December 2024 Revised: 10 April 2025 Accepted: 22 May 2025 Published: 27 May 2025
  • JEL Codes: G20, G21, G28

  • This study aimed to analyze the determinants of banking profitability in Portugal within the context of a transforming financial sector marked by the sovereign debt crisis, the Troika, and the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary objective was to identify the internal and external factors influencing bank profitability and provide recommendations for improving the sector's performance. Methodologically, panel data covering 16 Portuguese banks between 2009 and 2023 were used, enabling a dynamic analysis of the relationship between microeconomic and macroeconomic variables. The empirical approach was based on the generalized method of moments (GMM), ensuring robustness in the estimates by addressing endogeneity and unobserved heterogeneity. The variables analyzed included internal indicators such as operational efficiency, asset quality, and asset management, as well as macroeconomic factors like GDP growth, inflation, and unemployment. The results highlight that operational efficiency and unemployment negatively impact banking profitability, while asset quality and branch reduction have positive effects. Moreover, the sovereign debt crisis showed a significant adverse effect, contrasting with the pandemic crisis's absence of a statistically significant impact. This study contributes to the literature by deepening the understanding of the determinants of banking profitability in peripheral economies of the Eurozone. Practically, it provides insights for investors, policymakers, and banking managers in formulating strategies to strengthen the sector's resilience.

    Citation: Luís Almeida, Francisco Sousa. Determinants of bank profitability in Portugal: Insights from a period of sectoral transformation[J]. Quantitative Finance and Economics, 2025, 9(2): 425-448. doi: 10.3934/QFE.2025014

    Related Papers:

    [1] Onyekachi Juliet Okpasuo, Ifeanyi Oscar Aguzie, Anunobi Toochukwu Joy, Fabian C Okafor . Risk assessment of waterborne infections in Enugu State, Nigeria: Implications of household water choices, knowledge, and practices. AIMS Public Health, 2020, 7(3): 634-649. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2020050
    [2] Ioan Stelian Bocşan, Irina Brumboiu, Tudor Călinici, Mariana Vlad, Cecilia Roman, Ioana Brie, Mihaela Lucia Ponta . G.I.S. Surveillance of Chronic Non-occupational Exposure to Heavy Metals as Oncogenic Risk. AIMS Public Health, 2016, 3(1): 54-64. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2016.1.54
    [3] Julia Metelka, Colin Robertson, Craig Stephen . Japanese Encephalitis: Estimating Future Trends in Asia. AIMS Public Health, 2015, 2(4): 601-615. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2015.4.601
    [4] Talal Alharazi, Omar AA Bamaga, Nazeh Al-Abd, Jerold C Alcantara . Intestinal parasitic infection: prevalence, knowledge, attitude, and practices among schoolchildren in an urban area of Taiz city, Yemen. AIMS Public Health, 2020, 7(4): 769-777. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2020059
    [5] Ali Moussaoui, El Hadi Zerga . Transmission dynamics of COVID-19 in Algeria: The impact of physical distancing and face masks. AIMS Public Health, 2020, 7(4): 816-827. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2020063
    [6] Rosemary Mamka Anyona, Maximilian de Courten . An Analysis of the Policy Environment Surrounding Noncommunicable Diseases Risk Factor Surveillance in Kenya. AIMS Public Health, 2014, 1(4): 256-274. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2014.4.256
    [7] Sudip Bhattacharya . Artificial intelligence, human intelligence, and the future of public health. AIMS Public Health, 2022, 9(4): 644-650. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2022045
    [8] PauleMiquelon, AlainLesage, RichardBoyer, StéphaneGuay, PierreBleau, MoniqueSéguin . Mental Health Service Utilization among Students and Staff in 18 Months Following Dawson College Shooting. AIMS Public Health, 2014, 1(2): 84-99. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2014.2.84
    [9] Hamdi Abdulwahab Alhakimi, Omima Gadalla Mohamed, Hayat Salah Eldin Khogaly, Khalid Ahmad Omar Arafa, Waled Amen Ahmed . Epidemiological, Clinical and Entomological Characteristics of Yellow Fever Outbreak in Darfur 2012. AIMS Public Health, 2015, 2(1): 132-141. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2015.1.132
    [10] Duong Minh Duc, Le Thi Vui, Hoang Ngoc Son, Hoang Van Minh . Smoking Initiation and Cessation among Youths in Vietnam: A Longitudinal Study Using the Chi Linh Demographic—Epidemiological Surveillance System (CHILILAB DESS). AIMS Public Health, 2017, 4(1): 1-18. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2017.1.1
  • This study aimed to analyze the determinants of banking profitability in Portugal within the context of a transforming financial sector marked by the sovereign debt crisis, the Troika, and the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary objective was to identify the internal and external factors influencing bank profitability and provide recommendations for improving the sector's performance. Methodologically, panel data covering 16 Portuguese banks between 2009 and 2023 were used, enabling a dynamic analysis of the relationship between microeconomic and macroeconomic variables. The empirical approach was based on the generalized method of moments (GMM), ensuring robustness in the estimates by addressing endogeneity and unobserved heterogeneity. The variables analyzed included internal indicators such as operational efficiency, asset quality, and asset management, as well as macroeconomic factors like GDP growth, inflation, and unemployment. The results highlight that operational efficiency and unemployment negatively impact banking profitability, while asset quality and branch reduction have positive effects. Moreover, the sovereign debt crisis showed a significant adverse effect, contrasting with the pandemic crisis's absence of a statistically significant impact. This study contributes to the literature by deepening the understanding of the determinants of banking profitability in peripheral economies of the Eurozone. Practically, it provides insights for investors, policymakers, and banking managers in formulating strategies to strengthen the sector's resilience.



    Antimicrobial resistance in commonly isolated bacteria has since been recognized by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a significant threat to global health, already reaching alarming levels in most parts of the world [1]. Of all the agents in the antimicrobial arsenal available to humans, carbapenems such as: imipenem, doripenem and etrapenem, are regarded as antibiotics of last resort, often reserved for infections resistant to the other commonly-used antibiotics. However, reports of carbapenem-resistant infections, especially those caused by the Enterobacteriaceae and other gram-negative bacteria have emerged, raising valid concerns that we may have reached the end of the antibiotics pipeline. Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae are extremely virulent organisms exhibiting resistance to carbapenems and most, if not all, of the other classes of antibiotics available today. As a result, they have been associated with a high mortality rate. In a 2017 study by Tamma et al. [2], they found that 32% of patients with CRE bloodstream infections died within 14 days. Several mechanisms have been used to explain the emergence of carbapenem resistance (Table 1), which may be classified into: intrinsic and acquired mechanisms. Intrinsic mechanisms include the production of chromosomal carbapenemases from class A serine carbapenemases [3], as seen in Enterobacter cloacae, Serratia mercescens and Klebsiella sp., development of efflux pumps, as seen in Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumannii or the reduction in the outer membrane permeability through loss of porins [3],[4].

    The acquired mechanisms are often plasmid-mediated, spreading through horizontal gene transfer. Some of the carbapenemases implicated in the acquired mechanisms include: Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase, which is one of the most frequently isolated carbapenemase globally, and has been identified as the cause of several nosocomial outbreaks [5][7]; and the New Delhi metallo-β-lactamase (NDM), first isolated in 2008, and now one of the most important carbapenemases today [8]. Over the last decade, the incidence of CRE infections has risen dramatically worldwide, however, while epidemiological data exists from developed settings in Europe [9], the USA [10],[11] and China [12], there remains a critical paucity of data from resource limited settings like those found in Africa. One of the most important strategies identified for the control of antimicrobial resistance is active disease surveillance, especially in the healthcare setting.

    There is a need for expanded efforts towards the active surveillance of Enterobacteriaceae as well as other gram negative infections, in order to rapidly identify changing resistance patterns and emerging threats. One way in which such surveillance can be achieved is by collecting and analysing routinely collected medical health records, to highlight these changing trends and implement effective strategies towards clinical case management and infection prevention and control [13]. The aims of this study therefore were: to elucidate the epidemiology of CRE infections in a tertiary care facility in south-west Nigeria, from routinely-collected hospital microbiology data, and identify how factors such as age, gender and hospital location, influenced the chances of developing CRE infections in the study population. This would in turn; fill the identified knowledge gaps on the epidemiology of CRE infections in low resource settings, the data of which will also inform strategies for infection prevention and control.

    Table 1.  Mechanisms of emergence of carbapenem-resistance.
    Type of mechanism Examples
    Through carbapenemases Class A serine carbapenemases:
    - Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemases (KPC)
    - Guiana extended spectrum carbapenemases
    Class B metallo-β-lactamases (MBLs):
    - Verona integrin-encoded metallo-β-lactamase (VIM)
    - Sao Paulo metallo-β-lactamase (SPM)
    - Seoul imipenemases (SIM)
    - German imipenemases (GIM)
    - New Delhi metallo-β-lactamase (NDM)
    Class D serine carbapenemases:
    - OXAβ-lactamases (e.g. OXA-48 and its variants)
    Through extended spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBL) or Amp-C beta-lactamase, with efflux pump development or cell surface porin loss

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    A retrospective epidemiological surveillance study was conducted between January 1, 2018 and June 30, 2018 at the Department of Medical Microbiology and Parasitology of the University College Hospital (UCH), Ibadan. The University College Hospital (UCH) is a 1,000-bed tertiary care facility and university teaching hospital in Ibadan, south-west Nigeria, with approximately 150,000 new patients (in-patient and out-patients) every year [14]. It is the largest hospital in the region, offering care in all medical and surgical specialties, to the entire south-western region of Nigeria, and acts as a referral centre for most of the Nigerian population. The Department of Clinical Microbiology and Parasitology provides microbiological laboratory diagnostics procedures as well as molecular identification of microorganisms and serological testing services.

    For this study, male and female patients who had routine laboratory microbiological investigations for bacterial infections (culture and sensitivity) during the study period were eligible. Exclusion criteria included: missing key data and isolates with mixed colonies suggestive of sample contamination. A case of CRE was defined a clinical culture with organisms of the Enterobacteriaceae family, exhibiting phenotypic resistance (determined using zone of inhibition diameter on Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion method, and according to the guidelines of the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute) to carbapenems (imipenem, meropenem or etrapenem). An initial literature review identified members of the Enterobacteriaceae family to be included in the study: Klebsiella pneumoniae, Klebsiella oxytoca, Escherichia coli, Proteus mirabilis, Enterobacter sp., Morganella morganii and Providencia sp. [15]. Other gram-negative infections included in the study include: Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Pseudomonas luteola, Acinetobacter baumannii and Haemophilus influenza.

    Records of the Clinical Microbiology and Parasitology department were reviewed to collect clinical and epidemiological data of patients meeting the inclusion criteria for the study. The data collected include: patient demographics, location in the hospital, samples collected, isolate types and results of antibiotic susceptibility testing. All data was extracted from the laboratory records using a pre-designed Microsoft Excel 2010 structured spreadsheet.

    Isolates were cultured using standard bacteriological techniques, and bacteria species were identified and confirmed using biochemical methods, such as: oxidase reaction, indole test, pigmentation, mucoid production and growth pattern on MacConkey agar on incubation, as well as with the use of the available miniaturized multi-test identification systems API (bio Merieux SA) and Microgen (Microbiology International, UK). Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed using the Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion method on Mueller-Hinton agar (Oxoid, England) and the interpretations were carried as described in the guidelines of the Clinical and Laboratory Standard Institute (CLSI) [16]. Antibiotics against which the isolates were tested include: ceftazidime (30 µg), ceftriaxone (30 µg), cefuroxime (30 µg), cefoxitin (30 µg), gentamicin (10 µg), amikacin, ampicillin (10 µg), erythromycin (15 µg), ciprofloxacin (5 µg), ofloxacin (5 µg), nitrofurantoin (300 µg), amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (Augmentin®) (30 µg), meropenem (10 µg), colistin (10 µg), ampicillin/sulbactam (10 µg/10 µg) and piperacillin/tazobactam (100 µg/10 µg). The plates were incubated at 37 ˚C for 24 hours and the diameters of the zones of complete inhibition were measured to the nearest millimeter and compared with the guidelines of the CLSI [16] to determine resistance and sensitivity states. Escherichia coli ATCC25922 and Klebsiella pneumoniae ATCC13883 were used as reference strains for the susceptibility testing.

    Prior to analysis, data was processed to ensure each row represented the susceptibility result for each patient, isolate or sample. Age was categorized as follows: 0–16, 17–24, 25–39, 40–54, 55–69, and ≥70 years old. Patient location (ward) was assigned to the corresponding clinical department. Total resistance scores were calculated for each isolate by adding the resistance scores obtained in each antibiotic category tested i.e. any isolate demonstrating resistance to at least one cephalosporin agent was assigned a resistance score of 1 in the cephalosporin resistance variable. Descriptive statistics were used summarize clinical and epidemiological characteristics of CRE infections. Continuous variables were presented as medians with their interquartile range while categorical variables were expressed as frequencies with their percentages. The x2 test of association was used to determine if there were statistically significant differences in the proportion of CRE infections between age groups, sex and clinical specialties or hospital sites. Independent sample t-test was performed to determine if mean differences between subjects of a categorical variable were statistically significant. The threshold for statistical significance was p < 0.05 Data analysis was done with the SPSS Windows version 24 (IBM, Chicago, IL, USA).

    Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of the University of Ibadan/University College Hospital (UI/UCH IRB). All data was annonymised prior to analysis and all data was treated with strict confidentiality. As the study did not directly involve human participants, the requirement for informed consent was waived.

    Between January 1, 2018 and June 30, 2018, a total of 800 samples were received by the clinical microbiology and parasitology department for antimicrobial culture and sensitivity testing, of which 235 (29.4%) yielded significant growth on bacterial culture. Of these, there were 177 (22.1%) microbiology reports made across all Enterobacteriaceae and gram-negative bacteria species included in analysis, the distribution of which is summarized in Table 2. These reports represented the data for 177 patients; of which 81 patients were females (45.8%) and 96 patients were males (54.2%), with a median age of 42 years (interquartile range, 29 to 64 years; Table 3). The four most frequently recorded specimens from which the Enterobacteriaceae and gram-negative organisms were cultured include: urine (n = 72; 40.7%), wound culture (n = 40; 28.3%), tracheal aspirate (n = 16; 9.0%) and sputum (n = 13; 7.3%) as summarized in Table 4. The clinical departments from which the highest number of patients from which Enterobacteriaceae and gram-negative organisms were cultured include: surgery (n = 54; 30.5%), medicine (n = 36; 20.3%), pediatrics (n = 25; 14.1%) and intensive care (n = 23; 13.0%).

    Table 2.  Distribution of organisms isolated during the study period.
    Organism Isolated; n (% = n/total isolate) Carbapenem-susceptibility
    Sensitive; n (% = n/total organism) Resistant; n (% = n/total organism)
    Klebsiella pneumoniae 59 (33.3) 45 (76.3) 14 (23.7)
    Escherichia coli 36 (20.3) 34 (94.4) 2 (5.6)
    Pseudomonas aeruginosa 31 (17.5) 19 (61.3) 12 (38.7)
    Klebsiella oxytoca 24 (13.6) 18 (75.0) 6 (25.0)
    Proteus mirabilis 12 (6.8) 11 (91.7) 1 (9.1)
    Enterobacter cloacae. 3 (1.7) 3 (100) 0 (0.0)
    Acinetobacter baumannii 3 (1.7) 1 (33.3) 2 (66.7)
    Proteus vulgaris 3 (1.7) 3 (100) 0 (0.0)
    Morganella morganii 2 (1.1) 2 (100) 0 (0.0)
    Pseudomonas luteola 2 (1.1) 1 (50.0) 1 (50.0)
    Haemophilus influenza 1 (0.6) 1 (100) 0 (0.0)
    Providencia sp. 1 (0.6) 0 (0.0) 1 (100)
    Total 177 (100) 138 (100) 39 (100)

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 3.  Demographic characteristics of patients included in the study.
    Characteristics Data
    All Enterobacteriaceae and gram-negative isolates Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae and gram-negative isolates p value
    Sex n (% = n/total isolate) n (% = n/total resistant) 0.16
    - Female 81 (45.8) 14 (35.9)
    - Male 96 (54.2) 25 (64.1)
    Age groups (years) n (% = n/total isolate) n (% = n/total resistant) 0.11
    - 0–16 29 (16.4) 4 (10.3)
    - 17–24 12 (6.8) 1 (2.6)
    - 25–39 42 (23.7) 10 (25.6)
    - 40–54 36 (20.3) 14 (35.9)
    - 55–69 30 (16.9) 5 (12.8)
    - ≥ 70 28 (15.8) 5 (12.8)
    Total 177 (100) 39 (100)

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 4.  Distribution of organisms across clinical specimens.
    Specimen Number of organisms p value
    All Enterobacteriaceae and gram-negative bacteria; n (% = n/total isolates) Carbapenem-resistant isolates; n (% = n/number of isolates in specimen)
    Urine 72 (40.7) 15 (20.8) 0.00
    Wound culture 50 (28.3) 10 (20.0)
    Tracheal aspirate 16 (9.0) 7 (43.8)
    Sputum 13 (7.3) 4 (30.8)
    Catheter tip 7 (4.0) 3 (42.9)
    Pleural fluid 6 (3.4) 0 (0.0)
    Eye swab 4 (2.3) 0 (0.0)
    Pus 3 (1.7) 0 (0.0)
    Ear swab 2 (1.1) 0 (0.0)
    Tissue biopsy 2 (1.1) 0 (0.0)
    Rectal swab 1 (0.6) 0 (0.0)
    CSF 1 (0.6) 0 (0.0)

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Of the 177 Enterobacteriaceae and gram-negative bacterial infections, 39 (22%) displayed phenotypic carbapenem resistance, representing 8 different bacterial species of the 12 species studied. Of these, Klebsiella pneumoniae (n = 14; 35.9%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n = 12; 30.8%) displayed the highest levels of carbapenem resistance. The other strains detected include: Klebsiella oxytoca (n = 6/39; 15.4%), Escherichia coli (n = 2/39; 5.1%), Proteus mirabilis (n = 1/39; 2.6%), Pseudomonas luteola (n = 1/39; 2.6%) and Providencia sp. (n = 1/39; 2.6%). The results of x2 analysis showed that the difference in rates of carbapenem resistance across the bacterial strains was significant (p = 0.02), with Klebsiella pneumoniae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains showing significantly higher rates of carbapenem resistance, compared to other isolated strains as summarized in Table 2. A difference in the proportion of carbapenem resistance was noticed across clinical specialties, with surgery and the intensive care unit (ICU), displaying the highest rates of carbapenem resistance among the bacterial species studies at (n = 14/39; 35.9%) and (n = 9/39; 23.1%) respectively. However, x2 analysis did not suggest that this difference was statistically significant (p = 0.34), as displayed in Table 5. A similar difference in proportion of carbapenem resistance was observed across the patient age categories studied (Table 3), with the age range 40 – 54 years displaying the highest rate of carbapenem resistant infections (n = 14/39; 35.9%), while the age range 17–24 years displaying the least (n = 1/39; 0.26%). However upon x2 analysis, this difference was also found to be statistically insignificant (p = 0.11).

    Furthermore, drug resistance analysis revealed that 34 (87.2%) of the carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae and gram-negative bacteria isolates were multi-drug resistant (defined as phenotypic resistance to at least one antibiotic agent in a minimum of three different antibiotic groups), compared to 62 (44.9%) of the carbapenem-sensitive isolates. Looking into the specific antibiotic agents tested, the carbapenem-resistant isolates exhibited the highest levels of phenotypic resistance to the cephalosporins (n = 33/39; 84.6%), followed by fluoroquinolones (n = 28/39; 71.8%) and aminoglycosides (n = 26/39; 66.7%), while 82.1% of isolates were susceptible to colistin (Table 6). The result of an independent sample t-test indicated that there was also a significant difference in total resistance scores between the carbapenem-sensitive and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae and gram-negative bacteria isolates, t (175) = 6.72, p < 0.001, with the average total resistance score of the carbapenem-resistant isolates (M = 3.93, SD = 1.44) being significantly higher than that of the carbapenem-sensitive isolates (M = 2.30, SD = 1.30).

    Table 5.  Distribution of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae and gram-negative isolates across clinical specialties.
    Clinical specialties Number of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) and gram-negative isolates; n (% = n/total resistant isolates) p value
    Surgery 14 (35.9) 0.34
    Intensive care unit (ICU) 9 (23.1)
    Medicine 6 (15.4)
    Paediatrics 4 (10.3)
    Obstetrics & Gynaecology (O&G) 3 (7.7)
    Emergency department (ED) 2 (5.1)
    General out-patient department (GOPD) 1 (2.6)

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 6.  Percentage of resistant CRE isolates by antibiotic class.
    Antibiotics class Number of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) and gram-negative isolates; n (% = n/total resistant isolates)
    Cephalosporins 33 (84.6)
    Aminoglycosides 26 (66.7)
    Fluoroquinolones 28 (71.8)
    Colistin 7 (17.9)
    Nitrofurantoin 9 (23.1)
    Penicillin 11 (28.2)

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae and gram-negative infections have become a critical problem and a significant threat to global health, associated with a high morbidity and mortality rate [2],[11],[17]. Results from our epidemiological study placed the prevalence of carbapenem-resistance among Enterobacteriaceae and gram-negative bacteria isolates in the study location at 22%. This value lower than those reported in literature from other locations—Uganda (30.6% [18]), Tanzania (42.0% [19]), India (24.0% [20]), but higher than that reported from Tunisia (15.8% [21]). Other studies from different locations in Nigeria have also reported varying numbers with Shettima et al. [22] reporting a prevalence of 6.8% from Northeast Nigeria, while Ogbolu et al. [23] and Olalekan et al. [24] reported a prevalence of 36.8% and 27.4% respectively. The clinical samples from which the highest proportion of carbapenem-resistant isolates were cultured were urine (40.7%), wound culture (28.3%), tracheal aspirate (9.0%) and sputum (7.3%). These are very similar to the results obtained in a similar study in London by Freeman et al. [25], where urine cultures (44.5%), wound cultures (23.7%) and sputum cultures (14.5%) were the most frequently recorded clinical specimens containing carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae and gram-negative bacteria infections. Differences were also noticed in the proportion of carbapenem-resistant infections across clinical departments, with samples from patients on surgical wards as well as in the intensive care unit (ICU) displaying the highest proportions of carbapenem-resistance, a results which corresponds with that obtained in a similar study in South Africa by Thomas and Duse [26], where the ICU (5%) and surgical wards (23%) reported the highest CRE prevalence. This difference could be explained by the critical nature of the illnesses patients on these wards suffer and their requirement of prolonged hospitalization. This information could be used to identify locations within the hospital requiring increased infection prevention and control measures to reduce the dissemination of CRE and gram-negative infections.

    Another variable within which there were differences in proportion of carbapenem-resistant isolates was age, with the age group 40–54 years displaying the highest proportion (35.9%) of CRE infections and the age group 17–24 years displaying the lowest proportion (0.26%). This finding is commensurate with those from other studies such as that from China by Zhang et al. [12], in which patients aged 50–64 years had the second highest rate of carbapenem-resistant infections (23.9%), while those aged 65–79 years had the highest rate (28.9%). However, a prospective, multicentre, observational study of hospitals in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan, launched by the Consortium on resistance against carbapenems in Klebsiella and other Enterobacteriaceae (CRACKLE) found that the median age of patients enrolled in the study, with carbapenem-resistant K. pneumoniae infections was much higher at 70 years (interquartile range 58–81 years) [27]. A possible explanation for the higher predisposition of middle-aged and elderly patients to these infections could be the higher prevalence of co-morbidities such as: diabetes mellitus, hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, renal insufficiency and cancer, which result is frequent hospitalization, long hospital stay and use of multiple antibiotics use, all of which predisposes them to the most severe forms of these infections [28],[29]. As regards antibiotic susceptibility testing, 87.2% of the carbapenem-resistant isolates were also found to be multi-drug resistant (defined as non-susceptibility to at least one agent in three different antibiotic groups), as compared with 44.9% in the carbapenem-susceptible Enterobacteriaceae and gram-negative bacteria isolates included in the study.

    Furthermore, of the groups of antibiotics tested, cephalosporins (resistance rate = 84.6%), fluoroquinolones (resistance rate = 71.8%) and aminoglycosides (resistance rate = 66.7%) had the least effect on the carbapenem-resistant isolates. These findings are in tandem with existing literature on the subject as reported by Zhang et al. [12], where all carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae were also resistant to all cephalosporins tested, and aminoglycosides possessed better activity compared with fluoroquinolones. The reason for this can be traced back to the mechanism of development of carbapenem-resistance, which is due to the development of extended spectrum-β-lactamases, and cephalosporins, being β-lactam antibiotics themselves would therefore be ineffective against CRE infections. Meanwhile, polymixins E (or colistin) had the highest effect, with 82.1% of the isolates being susceptible to the agent. Finally, through an independent sample t-test, we were able to confirm that carbapenem-resistance was indeed associated with a higher rate of antimicrobial resistance than carbapenem-susceptibility, in our study population.

    With the rise in the rate of antimicrobial resistant infections in general, and carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae and gram-negative bacteria infections in particular, there have been calls for the urgent development of alternatives to antibiotics, for combating these infections. Some options being explored include the use of antimicrobial peptides (AMP) and ceragenins for treating these infections [30]. Some in vivo studies have shown the effectiveness of ceragenins and AMPs in eliminating bacterial isolates [31]. Another alternative being pushed is bacteriophage therapy and several in vitro and in vivo human and animal studies have shown that this approach could be effective. However there is need for further standardized clinical trials in humans to establish its safety and efficacy, as well as help navigate the many regulatory hurdles towards its entry into conventional human medicine [32].

    Results from the analysis presented in this study have provided insight into the epidemiology of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae and other gram-negative bacteria infections in the healthcare setting being investigated. Furthermore, we have shown how routinely collected microbiological laboratory data can be used to develop a deeper understanding of infectious disease trends and emerging threats; however, this study is not without its limitations. First, we have not spoken about the molecular epidemiology of the mechanism of carbapenem-resistance in the study population. This would be crucial to further understand how the molecular basis of how these observed resistance patterns have emerged. Second, we also did not speak about the hospital-wide incidence of carbapenem-resistance as well as the clinical characteristics of the patients from which the isolates studied were obtained. This was because the required data could not be obtained due to the lack of a centralized electronic health information management system in the study location. Such data if available would provide insight into the clinical risk factors of carbapenem-resistance in the study population, which could inform health promotion efforts. Finally, due to the small sample size, we could not carry out an organism-level analysis, to determine the trends of carbapenem-resistance between bacterial species and investigate any differences or associations that may exist.

    In conclusion, going forward, we recommend that a prospective, multi-centre epidemiological surveillance study be considered, involving multiple sites in different regions across the country, to better understand the patterns of carbapenem-resistance as well as other forms of antimicrobial resistance that may be developing across the country. We believe the findings from our study have the potential to influence far-reaching infection prevention and control measures towards curtailing the spread of carbapenem-resistance and safe-guarding our existing antibiotics armory.



    [1] Abdelaziz H, Rim B, Helmi H (2020) The Interactional Relationships Between Credit Risk, Liquidity Risk and Bank Profitability in MENA Region. Global Bus R 23: 561–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150919879304 doi: 10.1177/0972150919879304
    [2] Acharya V, Drechsler I, Schnabl P (2014) A pyrrhic victory? Bank bailouts and sovereign credit risk. J Financ 69: 2689–2739. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12206 doi: 10.1111/jofi.12206
    [3] Agnese P, Cerciello M, Oriani R, et al. (2024) ESG controversies and profitability in the European banking sector. Financ Res Lett 61: 105042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2024.105042 doi: 10.1016/j.frl.2024.105042
    [4] Alexiou C, Sofoklis V (2009) Determinants of bank profitability: Evidence from the green banking sector. Econ Annals 54: 93–118. https://doi.org/10.2298/EKA0982093A doi: 10.2298/EKA0982093A
    [5] Al-Homaidi E, Tabash M, Farhan N, et al. (2018) Bank-specific and macro-economic determinants of profitability of Indian commercial banks: A panel data approach. Cogent Econ Financ 6: 1548072. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2018.1548072 doi: 10.1080/23322039.2018.1548072
    [6] Al-Matari E (2023) The determinants of bank profitability of GCC: The role of bank liquidity as moderating variable—Further analysis. Int J Financ Econ 28: 1423–1435. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.2485 doi: 10.1002/ijfe.2485
    [7] Almeida L (2020) Technical indicators for rational investing in the technology companies: The evidence of n stocks. J Pengurusan 59: 75–87. http://doi.org/10.17576/pengurusan-2020-59-08 doi: 10.17576/pengurusan-2020-59-08
    [8] Alshubiri F (2022) The financial competition, concentration and structure of financial performance nexus in the financial sector of Oman. Econ Chang Restruct 55: 681–714. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10644-021-09326-8 doi: 10.1007/s10644-021-09326-8
    [9] Antony T (2023) Determinants of liquidity risk: Empirical evidence from Indian commercial banks. Banks Bank Syst 18: 101–111. https://doi.org/10.21511/bbs.18(3).2023.09 doi: 10.21511/bbs.18(3).2023.09
    [10] Arellano M, Bond S (1991) Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Rev Econ Stud 58: 277–297. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297968 doi: 10.2307/2297968
    [11] Arellano M, Bover O (1995) Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. J Econometrics 68: 29–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)01642-D doi: 10.1016/0304-4076(94)01642-D
    [12] Argimon I, Danton J, de Haa J, et al. (2023) Low interest rates and banks' interest margins: Does belonging to a banking group matter? J Bank Financ 154: 106966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2023.106966 doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2023.106966
    [13] Athanasoglou P, Brissimis S, Matthaios D (2008) Bank-specific, industry-specific and macroeconomic determinants of bank profitability. J Int Financ Mark Institution Money 18: 121–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intfin.2006.07.001 doi: 10.1016/j.intfin.2006.07.001
    [14] Athari S, Bahreini M (2023) The impact of external governance and regulatory settings on the profitability of Islamic banks: Evidence from Arab markets. Int J Financ Econ 28: 2124–2147. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijfe.2529 doi: 10.1002/ijfe.2529
    [15] Basílio S, Pires M, Borralho C (2021) Determinants of Portuguese banks' profitability: an update. Tourism Manage Stud 17: 63–70. https://doi.org/10.18089/tms.2021.170305 doi: 10.18089/tms.2021.170305
    [16] Belcaid K, Al-Faryan M (2023) Determinants of Bank Profitability in the Context of Financial Liberalization: Evidence from Morocco. Bus Perspect Res 12: 164–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/22785337221148872 doi: 10.1177/22785337221148872
    [17] Ben Bouheni F, Sidaoui M, Leshchinskii D, et al. (2024) Banking-as-a-service? American and European G-SIBs performance. J Risk Financ 25: 840–869. https://doi:10.1108/JRF-10-2023-0263 doi: 10.1108/JRF-10-2023-0263
    [18] Boitan I, Marchewka B (2021) The Sovereign-Bank Nexus in the Face of the COVID-19 Pandemic Outbreak Evidence from EU Member States. J Risks 9: 77–98. https://doi.org/10.3390/RISKS9050098 doi: 10.3390/RISKS9050098
    [19] Bourke P (1989) Concentration and Other Determinants of Bank Profitability in Europe, North America and Australia. J Bank Financ 13: 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4266(89)90020-4 doi: 10.1016/0378-4266(89)90020-4
    [20] Cancela B, Neves M, Rodrigues L, et al. (2020) The influence of corporate governance on corporate sustainability: new evidence using panel data in the Iberian macroeconomic environment. Int J Account Inf Manage 28: 85–806. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJAIM-05-2020-0068 doi: 10.1108/IJAIM-05-2020-0068
    [21] Chhaidar A, Abdelhedi M, Abdelkafi I (2023) The Effect of Financial Technology Investment Level on European Banks' Profitability. J Knowledge Economy 14: 2959–2981. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-022-00992-1 doi: 10.1007/s13132-022-00992-1
    [22] Chukwuogor C, Anoruo E, Ndu I (2021) An empirical analysis of the U.S. banks' profitability determinants. Banks Bank Syst 16: 209–217. https://doi.org/10.21511/bbs.16(4)2021.17 doi: 10.21511/bbs.16(4)2021.17
    [23] Claessens S, Coleman N, Donnelly M (2017) Low-For-Long" interest rates and banks' interest margins and profitability: Cross-country evidence. J Financ Intermed 35: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JFI.2017.05.004 doi: 10.1016/J.JFI.2017.05.004
    [24] Demirgüç-Kunt, A, Pedraza A, Ruiz O (2021) Banking sector performance during the COVID-19 crisis. J Bank Financ 133: 106305–106305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2021.106305 doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2021.106305
    [25] Dermine J, Carvalho C (2008) Bank loan-loss provisioning, central bank rules vs. estimation: The case of Portugal. J Financ Stability 4: 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2007.12.001 doi: 10.1016/j.jfs.2007.12.001
    [26] Dietrich A, Wanzenried G (2011) Determinants of bank profitability before and during the crisis: Evidence from Switzerland. J Int Financ Mark Institutions Money 21: 307–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intfin.2010.11.002 doi: 10.1016/j.intfin.2010.11.002
    [27] Djalilov K, Jenefer P (2016) Determinants of bank profitability in transition countries: What matters most? R Int Bus Financ 38: 69–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2016.03.015 doi: 10.1016/j.ribaf.2016.03.015
    [28] Figlewsk S, Frydman H, Liang W (2012) Modeling the effect of macroeconomic factors on corporate default and credit rating transitions. Int Rev Econ Financ 21: 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2011.05.004 doi: 10.1016/j.iref.2011.05.004
    [29] Flamini V, McDonald CA, Schumacher L (2009) The determinants of commercial bank profitability in Sub-Saharan Africa (IMF Working Paper No. 09/15). International Monetary Fund. https://doi.org/10.5089/9781451871623.001 doi: 10.5089/9781451871623.001
    [30] Garcia MTM, Guerreiro JPSM (2016) Internal and external determinants of banks' profitability: The Portuguese case. J Econ Stud 43: 90–107. https://doi.org/10.1108/JES-09-2014-0166 doi: 10.1108/JES-09-2014-0166
    [31] García-Herrero A, Gavilá S, Santabárbara D (2009) What explains the low profitability of Chinese banks?. J Bank Financ 33: 2080–2092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2009.05.005 doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2009.05.005
    [32] Gržeta I, Žiković S, Tomas Ž (2023) Size matters: analyzing bank profitability and efficiency under the Basel Ⅲ framework. Financ Innovation 9: 43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-022-00412-y doi: 10.1186/s40854-022-00412-y
    [33] Hansen LP (1982) Large sample properties of generalized method of moments estimators. Econometrica J Econometric Society 50: 1029–1054. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912775 doi: 10.2307/1912775
    [34] Heitmann D, Chowdhury M, Islam M (2023) Heterogeneous impact of Covid-19 on the US banking sector. N Am J Econ Financ 68: 101990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2023.101990 doi: 10.1016/j.najef.2023.101990
    [35] Hossain S, Ahamed F (2021) Comprehensive Analysis on Determinants of Bank Profitability in Bangladesh. Central Bank of Bangladesh. Available from: https://www.bb.org.bd/fnansys/bankfi.php.
    [36] Huong T, Nga T, Oanh T (2021) Liquidity risk and bank performance in Southeast Asian countries: a dynamic panel approach. Quant Financ Econ 5: 111–133. https://doi:10.3934/QFE.2021006 doi: 10.3934/QFE.2021006
    [37] Iqbal N, Kryeziu N, Abonazel M, Harymawan I, et al. (2022) Profitability determining factors of banking sector: Panel data analysis of commercial banks in South Asian countries. Front Psychol 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1000412 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1000412
    [38] Jacobs Jr M, Sensenbrenner F (2018) A comparison of methodologies in the stress testing of credit risk–alternative scenario and dependency constructs. Quant Financ Econ 2: 294–324. https://doi:10.3934/QFE.2018.2.294 doi: 10.3934/QFE.2018.2.294
    [39] Jadah H, Alghanimi M, Al-Dahaan N, et al. (2020) Internal and external determinants of Iraqi bank profitability. Banks Bank Syst 15: 79–93. https://doi.org/10.21511/bbs.15(2)2020.08 doi: 10.21511/bbs.15(2)2020.08
    [40] Jigeer S, Koroleva E (2023) The Determinants of Profitability in the City Commercial Banks: Case of China. Risks 11: 53. https://doi.org/10.3390/risks11030053 doi: 10.3390/risks11030053
    [41] Kasana E, Chauhan K, Sahoo B (2023) Policy Interest Rate and Bank Profitability-Scheduled Commercial Banks in India. Financ Theory Pract 27: 138–149. https://doi.org/10.26794/2587-5671-2023-27-1-138-149 doi: 10.26794/2587-5671-2023-27-1-138-149
    [42] Katusiime L (2021) COVID 19 and bank profitability in low income countries: the case of Uganda. J Risk Financ Manage 14: 588. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14120588 doi: 10.3390/jrfm14120588
    [43] Khan S (2022a) Determinants of Banks Profitability: An Evidence from GCC Countries. J Central Bank Theory Pract 11: 99–116. https://doi.org/10.2478/jcbtp-2022-0025 doi: 10.2478/jcbtp-2022-0025
    [44] Khan S (2022b) Determinants of operational efficiency: the case of Saudi Banks. Financ Int Q 18: 11–20. https://doi.org/10.2478/fiqf-2022-0016 doi: 10.2478/fiqf-2022-0016
    [45] Kiy F, Zick T (2020) Effects of declining bank health on borrowers' earnings quality: evidence from the European sovereign debt crisis. J Bus Econ 90: 615–673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-020-00968-0 doi: 10.1007/s11573-020-00968-0
    [46] Klein P, Weill L (2022) Bank profitability and economic growth. Q Rev Econ Financ 84: 183–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.qref.2022.01.009 doi: 10.1016/j.qref.2022.01.009
    [47] Kohlscheen E, Lombardi M, Zakrajšek E (2021) Income inequality and the depth of economic downturns. Econ Lett 205: 109934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2021.109934 doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2021.109934
    [48] Korytowski M (2018) Banks' profitability determinants in post-crisis European Union. Int J Financ Bank Stud 7: 2147–4486. https://doi.org/10.20525/ijfbs.v7i1.847 doi: 10.20525/ijfbs.v7i1.847
    [49] Kumar V, Thrikawala S, Acharya S (2022) Financial inclusion and bank profitability: Evidence from a developed market. Global Financ J 53: 100609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfj.2021.100609 doi: 10.1016/j.gfj.2021.100609
    [50] Le T, Ngo T (2020) The determinants of bank profitability: A cross-country analysis. Central Bank Rev 20: 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbrev.2020.04.001 doi: 10.1016/j.cbrev.2020.04.001
    [51] Menicucci E, Paolucci G (2016) The determinants of bank profitability: empirical evidence from European banking sector. J Financ Report Account 14: 86–115. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFRA-05-2015-0060 doi: 10.1108/JFRA-05-2015-0060
    [52] Mirović V, Kalaš B, Milenković N, et al. (2024) Modelling Profitability Determinants in the Banking Sector: The Case of the Eurozone. Mathematics 12: 897. https://doi.org/10.3390/math12060897 doi: 10.3390/math12060897
    [53] Mkaro G, Lau L, Choong C (2023) The determinants of banking sector performance in Tanzania: A pre-post Treasury Single Account analysis. Cogent Econ Financ 11: 2282812. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2023.2282812 doi: 10.1080/23322039.2023.2282812
    [54] Molyneux P, Pancotto L, Reghezza A, et al. (2022) Interest rate risk and monetary policy normalisation in the euro area. J Int Money Financ 124: 102624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jimonfin.2022.102624 doi: 10.1016/j.jimonfin.2022.102624
    [55] Molyneux P, Thornton J (1992) Determinants of European bank profitability: A note. J Bank Financ 16: 1173–1178. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4266(92)90065-8 doi: 10.1016/0378-4266(92)90065-8
    [56] Naceur SB, Omran M (2011) The effects of bank regulations, competition, and financial reforms on banks' performance. Emerg Mark Rev 12: 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ememar.2010.08.002 doi: 10.1016/j.ememar.2010.08.002
    [57] Neves M, Proença C, Dias A (2020) Bank profitability and efficiency in Portugal and Spain: A non-linearity approach. J Risk Financ Manage 13: 284. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm13110284 doi: 10.3390/jrfm13110284
    [58] Nguyen T (2018) Diversification and bank efficiency in six ASEAN countries. Global Financ J 37: 57–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfj.2018.04.004 doi: 10.1016/j.gfj.2018.04.004
    [59] Oleiwi A, Ali M, Jassim S, et al. (2019) The relationship between credit risk management practices and profitability in malaysian commercial banks. Int J Eng Advanced Technol 8: 53–59. https://doi.org/10.35940/ijeat.e1007.0585c19 doi: 10.35940/ijeat.e1007.0585c19
    [60] Owoputi JA, Olawale FK, Adeyefa FA (2014) Bank specific, industry specific and macroeconomic determinants of bank profitability in Nigeria. Eur Sci J 10.
    [61] Qehaja-Keka V, Ahmeti S, Aliu M (2023) Bank profitability determinants: Evidence from Kosovo and Albania. J Liberty Int Affairs 9: 297–311. https://doi.org/10.47305/JLIA2392370qk doi: 10.47305/JLIA2392370qk
    [62] Safitri N, Wiksuana I, Candraningrat, I, et al. (2023) The influence of market power and revenue diversification on the profitability and stability of Indonesian banking during the COVID-19 pandemic. Uncertain Supply Chain Manage 11: 1495–1506. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.uscm.2023.7.019 doi: 10.5267/j.uscm.2023.7.019
    [63] Saleh B, Paz V (2023) Credit risk management and profitability: Evidence from Palestinian banks. Banks Bank Syst 18: 25–34. https://doi.org/10.21511/bbs.18(3).2023.03 doi: 10.21511/bbs.18(3).2023.03
    [64] Short B (1979) The relation between commercial bank profit rates and banking concentration in Canada, Western Europe, and Japan. J Bank Financ 3: 209–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4266(79)90016-5 doi: 10.1016/0378-4266(79)90016-5
    [65] Thinh T, Thuy L, Tuan D (2022) The impact of liquidity on profitability – evidence of Vietnamese listed commercial banks. Banks Bank Syst 17: 94–103 https://doi.org/10.21511/bbs.17(1)2022.08 doi: 10.21511/bbs.17(1)2022.08
    [66] Wintoki MB, Linck JS, Netter JM (2012) Endogeneity and the dynamics of internal corporate governance. J Financ Econ 105: 581–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2012.03.005 doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2012.03.005
    [67] Xu J, Haris M, Irfan M (2023) Assessing intellectual capital performance of banks during COVID-19: Evidence from China and Pakistan. Quant Financ Econ 7: 356–370. https://doi.org/10.3934/QFE.2023017 doi: 10.3934/QFE.2023017
    [68] Yakubu I, Bunyaminu A (2022) Bank profitability in Sub-Saharan Africa: does economic globalization matter? J Econ Admin Sci 40: 673–683. https://doi.org/10.1108/jeas-08-2021-0158 doi: 10.1108/jeas-08-2021-0158
    [69] Youngkyung O, Kim J, Park Y (2019) The effect of housing prices on bank performance in Korea. Sustainability 11: 6242. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11226242 doi: 10.3390/su11226242
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Tsegaye Alemayehu, Solomon Asnake, Bereket Tadesse, Elshaday Azerefegn, Enkosilassie Mitiku, Asnakech Agegnehu, Netsanet Nigussie, Techilo H/Mariam, Moges Desta, Phenotypic Detection of Carbapenem-Resistant Gram-Negative Bacilli from a Clinical Specimen in Sidama, Ethiopia: A Cross-Sectional Study, 2021, Volume 14, 1178-6973, 369, 10.2147/IDR.S289763
    2. Kabiru O. Akinyemi, Rebecca O. Abegunrin, Bamidele A. Iwalokun, Christopher O. Fakorede, Oliwia Makarewicz, Heinrich Neubauer, Mathias W. Pletz, Gamal Wareth, The Emergence of Klebsiella pneumoniae with Reduced Susceptibility against Third Generation Cephalosporins and Carbapenems in Lagos Hospitals, Nigeria, 2021, 10, 2079-6382, 142, 10.3390/antibiotics10020142
    3. Aamir Jamal Gondal, Nakhshab Choudhry, Hina Bukhari, Zainab Rizvi, Shah Jahan, Nighat Yasmin, Estimation, Evaluation and Characterization of Carbapenem Resistance Burden from a Tertiary Care Hospital, Pakistan, 2023, 12, 2079-6382, 525, 10.3390/antibiotics12030525
    4. Kosuke Kamio, J. Luis Espinoza, The Predominance of Klebsiella aerogenes among Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae Infections in Japan, 2022, 11, 2076-0817, 722, 10.3390/pathogens11070722
    5. MusaYakubu Tula, OnaiwuIdahosa Enabulele, EnduranceAnthony Ophori, AbumhereSamuel Aziegbemhin, Osaretin Iyoha, Joel Filgona, A systematic review of the current status of carbapenem resistance in Nigeria: Its public health implication for national intervention, 2023, 30, 1117-1936, 1, 10.4103/npmj.npmj_240_22
    6. James Sampah, Isaac Owusu-Frimpong, Frank Twum Aboagye, Alex Owusu-Ofori, Dwij Raj Bhatta, Prevalence of carbapenem-resistant and extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in a teaching hospital in Ghana, 2023, 18, 1932-6203, e0274156, 10.1371/journal.pone.0274156
    7. Ahmad Adebayo Irekeola, Rafidah Hanim Shueb, Engku Nur Syafirah Engku Abd Rahman, Hafeez Abiola Afolabi, Yusuf Wada, Abdirahman Hussein Elmi, Muath Abdu Hakami, Sfeeah Mofareah Alghzwani, Osman AE. Elnoubi, Ahmad A. Alshehri, High prevalence of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) in human samples from Nigeria: A systematic review and meta-analysis, 2024, 10, 24058440, e34926, 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e34926
    8. Shuliang Zhou, Sulin Mi, Xin Rao, Qi Zhang, Shiwen Wei, Meng Xiao, Zhiyong Peng, Jing Wang, Individualized active surveillance for carbapenem-resistant microorganisms using Xpert Carba-R in intensive care units, 2023, 13, 2045-2322, 10.1038/s41598-023-36321-y
    9. Bertha N. Moiketsi, Katlego P. P. Makale, Gaolathe Rantong, Teddie O. Rahube, Abdullah Makhzoum, Potential of Selected African Medicinal Plants as Alternative Therapeutics against Multi-Drug-Resistant Bacteria, 2023, 11, 2227-9059, 2605, 10.3390/biomedicines11102605
    10. Komla M. Dossouvi, Kpalma D. Bakpatina-Batako, Carbapenem resistance in West Africa: a systematic review, 2024, 11, 2500-2236, 10.18527/2024112556
    11. Nermin K Saeed, Safiya K Almusawi, Noor A Albalooshi, Mohammed Al-Beltagi, Unveiling the impact: COVID-19's influence on bacterial resistance in the Kingdom of Bahrain, 2025, 14, 2220-3249, 10.5501/wjv.v14.i1.100501
    12. Luyolo Vumba, Ravesh Singh, Sandeep Vasaikar, Molecular Analysis of Tigecycline Resistance in Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) in Mthatha and Surrounding Hospitals, 2025, 14, 2079-6382, 407, 10.3390/antibiotics14040407
    13. Assefa Sisay, Chalie Mulugeta, The magnitude of MDR carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae isolates and associated factors among hospitalized patients of Northeast Ethiopia, 2025, 7, 2632-1823, 10.1093/jacamr/dlaf080
    14. Partha Guchhait, Nairita Choudhuri, Bhaskar Narayan Chaudhuri, Tanni Datta, Arup Kumar Dawn, Pallab Das, Susmriti Dalui, Satadal Das, Improved diagnostic stewardship in carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales gene detection helps in early initiation of targeted therapy, 2025, 74, 0022-2615, 10.1099/jmm.0.002029
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2025 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(558) PDF downloads(82) Cited by(2)

Figures and Tables

Tables(3)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog