Objective To investigate the antimicrobial resistance profile of the clinical isolates collected from selected hospitals across China. Methods Twenty-nine general hospitals and five children's hospitals were involved in this program. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was carried out according to a unified protocol using Kirby-Bauer method or automated systems. Results were interpreted according to CLSI 2017 breakpoints. Results A total of 190 610 clinical isolates were collected from January to December 2017, of which gram negative organisms accounted for 70.8％ (134 951/190 610) and gram positive cocci 29.2％ (55 649/190 610). The prevalence of methicillin-resistant strains was 35.3％ in S. aureus (MRSA) and 80.3％ in coagulase negative Staphylococcus (MRCNS) on average. MR strains showed much higher resistance rates to most of the other antimicrobial agents than MS strains. However, 91.6％ of MRSA strains were still susceptible to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, while 86.2％ of MRCNS strains were susceptible to rifampin. No staphylococcal strains were found resistant to vancomycin. E. faecalis strains showed much lower resistance rates to most of the drugs tested (except chloramphenicol) than E. faecium. Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE) was identified in both E. faecalis and E. faecium. The identified VRE strains were mainly vanA, vanB or vanM type based on phenotype or genotype. The proportion of PSSP or PRSP strains in the non-meningitis S.pneumoniae strains isolated from children decreased but the proportion of PISP strains increased when compared to the data of 2016. Enterobacteriaceae strains were still highly susceptible to carbapenems. Overall, less than 10％ of these strains (excluding Klebsiella spp.) were resistant to carbapenems. The prevalence of imipenem-resistant K. pneumoniae increased from 3.0％ in 2005 to 20.9％ in 2017, and meropenem-resistant K. pneumoniae increased from 2.9％ in 2005 to 24.0％ in 2017, more than 8-fold increase. About 66.7％ and 69.3％ of Acinetobacter (A. baumannii accounts for 91.5％) strains were resistant to imipenem and meropenem, respectively. Compared with the data of year 2016, P. aeruginosa strains showed decreasing resistance rate to carbapenems. Conclusions Bacterial resistance is still on the rise. It is necessary to strengthen hospital infection control and stewardship of antimicrobial agents. The communication between laboratorians and clinicians should be further improved in addition to surveillance of bacterial resistance.

Objective To analyze the research status and trend of scarlet fever literature in China, and to provide reference for subsequent research. Methods Three major Chinese databases, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP, as well as Web of Science English database, were used to search for literature related to scarlet fever from 2000 to 2023. Citespace6.2.R2 software was used to statistically analyze the number of publications, authors, institutions and journals, co-cited literature, keyword clustering, and other literature characteristics of the literature. Results From 2000 to 2023, a total of 1 011 Chinese literature were included in the three major Chinese databases. Since 2011, the number of publications had gradually increased, but in recent years, the number of publications had decreased. The organization with the most publications was the Shenyang Center for Disease Control and Prevention. The cluster analysis of key words mainly formed 9 cluster tags, and the high-frequency keywords mainly included epidemic characteristics, epidemiology, incidence rate, etc. A total of 84 English literature were included in the WOS database, with an overall upward trend in publication volume. The institution with the most publications was the China Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and the most frequently cited journal was ^“LANCET INFECT DIS^”.《Resurgence of scarlet fever in China: a 13-year population-based surveillance study》 was the most cited journal. After keyword cluster analysis, 9 cluster labels were mainly formed, and the keywords were mainly outbreak，Hong Kong, and Group A streptococcus. Conclusion Compared with the English literature, which mainly focuses on spatiotemporal aggregation, etiology and strain resistance, Chinese literature focuses more on epidemic surveillance, clinical features and quality nursing.