\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter

\IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}%
  {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}%
  {\RequirePackage{color}}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{ifxetex}
\ifxetex
  \usepackage{fontspec}
  \usepackage{xunicode}
  \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash}
  \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{}
  \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}}
  \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}}
  \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}}
  \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}}
  \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono}
  
\else
  \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}%
   {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
      \PrerenderUnicode{–}
    }%
   {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}}
  \usepackage[english]{babel}
  \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
  \usepackage{float}
  \usepackage[]{ucs}
  \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash }
  \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{}
  \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}}
  \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}}
  \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,}
  \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ }
  \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>}
  \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}}
  \def\textJapanese{}
  \def\textChinese{}
  \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{}
\fi
\def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small}
\DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25}
\usepackage{relsize}
\RequirePackage{array}
\def\@testpach{\@chclass
 \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else
  \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else
   \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else
    \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@
   \else \z@
   \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else
   \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}%
   \@chnum
   \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else
    \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else
     \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else
   \z@ \@chclass
   \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else
    \if \@nextchar !6 \else
     \if \@nextchar @7 \else
      \if \@nextchar (8 \else
       \if \@nextchar )9 \else
  10
  \@chnum
  \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else
   \if \@nextchar p4 \else
    \if \@nextchar b5 \else
   \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi
   \fi \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi}
\gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr}
\def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}}
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\def\abbr{}
\def\corr{}
\def\expan{}
\def\gap{}
\def\orig{}
\def\reg{}
\def\ref{}
\def\sic{}
\def\persName{}\def\name{}
\def\placeName{}
\def\orgName{}
\def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}}
\def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}}
\def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}}
\def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}}
\def\textquoted#1{‘#1’}
\def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}}
\def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}}
\def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}}
\def\titlem{\itshape}
\newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{bibl}{}{}
\newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{rubric}{}{}
\newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par }

\newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}}
\newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75}
\def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}}
\DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@}
\def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}}
\begingroup
\catcode`\_=\active
\gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}}
\endgroup
\mathcode`\_=\string"8000
\catcode`\_=12\relax

\usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry}
\usepackage{framed}

\definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{fancyvrb}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{marginnote}

\renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1}


\renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize}

\def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif}

  \pagestyle{fancy}

\usepackage[pdftitle={Bacteriological Profile and Antibiotic Sensitivity Patterns in Children with Urinary Tract Infection: A Cross-Sectional Study in the Northern Part of Bangladesh},
 pdfauthor={}]{hyperref}
\hyperbaseurl{}

	 \paperwidth210mm
	 \paperheight297mm
              
\def\@pnumwidth{1.55em}
\def\@tocrmarg {2.55em}
\def\@dotsep{4.5}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
\clubpenalty=8000
\emergencystretch 3em
\hbadness=4000
\hyphenpenalty=400
\pretolerance=750
\tolerance=2000
\vbadness=4000
\widowpenalty=10000

\renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large}}
\renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}%
     {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\large}}
\renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}%
     {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize}}
\renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}%
     {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}%
     {-1em}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}}


\def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt}
 \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup
 \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth 
 \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth 
 \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par
 \endgroup}
\def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}}
\def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}}
\def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}}
\def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}}
\@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{}
\@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{}
\newif\if@mainmatter 
\@mainmattertrue
\def\chaptername{Chapter}
\def\frontmatter{%
  \pagenumbering{roman}
  \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\roman{section}}
  \def\@chapapp{}%
}
\def\mainmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter}
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \pagenumbering{arabic}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6}
  \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}%
  \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}}
}
\def\backmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2}
  \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}%
  \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}}
  \appendix
}
\newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{%
   \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
       {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}%
        \leftmargin\labelwidth
        \advance\leftmargin\labelsep
        \@openbib@code
        \usecounter{enumiv}%
        \let\p@enumiv\@empty
        \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}%
	}%
  \sloppy
  \clubpenalty4000
  \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty
  \widowpenalty4000%
  \sfcode`\.\@m}%
  {\def\@noitemerr
    {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}%
    \endlist}

\def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}}
\parskip0pt
\parindent1em
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\newenvironment{reflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{sansreflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{specHead}[2]%
 {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}%
  \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}%

  \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}%
  \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}%
  }{}
      \def\TheFullDate{1970-01-01 (revised: 01 January 1970)}
\def\TheID{\makeatother }
\def\TheDate{1970-01-01}
\title{Bacteriological Profile and Antibiotic Sensitivity Patterns in Children with Urinary Tract Infection: A Cross-Sectional Study in the Northern Part of Bangladesh}
\author{}\makeatletter 
\makeatletter
\newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{%
  \clearpage
    \if@twoside
    \ifodd\c@page
      \hbox{}\newpage
      \if@twocolumn
        \hbox{}\newpage
      \fi
    \fi
  \fi
}
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\thispagestyle{empty}
\markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author}
\renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@
\belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip
\abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@
\belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@
\def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini
               \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@
               \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@
               \itemsep 1pt}
}
\makeatother
\fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm}
\fancyhf{} 
\setlength{\headheight}{14pt}
\fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} 
\fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} 
\fancyfoot[RO]{}
\fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID}
\fancyfoot[LE]{}
\fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID}
\hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true}
\fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}}

\date{}
\usepackage{authblk}

\providecommand{\keywords}[1]
{
\footnotesize
  \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1
}

\usepackage{graphicx,xcolor}
\definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81}
\definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9}
\definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70}
\definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} 

\renewenvironment{abstract}{%
   \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
   \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space}
}{%   
   \vskip8pt
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
}

\usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos}

\makeatother 
      \usepackage{lineno}
      \linenumbers
      
\begin{document}

             \author[1]{Kamrun  Nahar}

             \author[2]{Ahmed Rashidul  Hasan}

             \author[3]{Nowrozy Kamar  Jahan}

\renewcommand\Authands{ and }

\date{\small \em Received: 1 January 1970 Accepted: 1 January 1970 Published: 1 January 1970}

\maketitle


\begin{abstract}
        


Urinary tract infection (UTI) is a prevalent infection in children. Over the years, the sensitivity and antimicrobial resistance patterns against uropathogens causing this infection have continuously changed. Pediatricians need updated knowledge of the antimicrobial sensitivity and resistance patterns of common uropathogens to provide appropriate treatment. This study aimed to determine the spectrum of causative uropathogens' antimicrobial sensitivity and resistance patterns in pediatric patients.Methods: A single-center, cross-sectional study was conducted from February 2021 to January 2022 at the tertiary care hospital in Rangpur, Bangladesh's northernmost division. A total of 200 children aged 0 months to 12 years with clinically suspected UTIs were enrolled in the study. Researchers reviewed the study participants' medical records and sent the urine sample for routine and microscopic examination and culture sensitivity testing.

\end{abstract}


\keywords{urinary tract infection. children. bacteriological profile. antibiotic sensitivity.}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark}
\end{textblock*}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}}
\end{textblock*}


\begin{textblock*}{10cm}(1.05cm,3cm)
{{\textit{CrossRef DOI of original article:}} \underline{}}
\end{textblock*}\let\tabcellsep& 	 	 		 
\section[{Introduction}]{Introduction}\par
rinary tract infection (UTI) is the clinical condition when bacteria enter the urethra to infect the different parts of the urinary tract (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2021). It is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the pediatric age group \hyperref[b13]{(Foxman, 2002)} and an essential indicator of underlying urinary tract anomalies \hyperref[b21]{(Laila et al., 2012)}. During the first year of life, males are affected frequently \hyperref[b19]{(Kanellopoulos et al., 2006)}, although the UTI incidence substantially increases among females with age (Al-Badr \& Al-Shaikh, 2013; \hyperref[b15]{Harrington \& Hooton, 2000;}\hyperref[b22]{Moreno, 2016)}. Although the outcome of UTI is usually benign, it may be associated with long-term complications \hyperref[b39]{(Tan \& Chlebicki, 2016)}. Therefore, prompt diagnosis and early initiation of appropriate antibiotics are required to reduce morbidities with conducted from February 2021 to January 2022 at the tertiary care hospital in Rangpur, Bangladesh's northernmost division. A total of 200 children aged 0 months to 12 years with clinically suspected UTIs were enrolled in the study. Researchers reviewed the study participants' medical records and sent the urine sample for routine and microscopic examination and culture sensitivity testing.\par
Results: Out of 200 children,94 (47\%) were identified as having presumptive UTIs due to significant pyuria, and 58 (29\%) were diagnosed with confirmed UTIs. Escherichia coli was the most isolated (62\%) pathogen. Among gram-negative bacteria, Klebsiella species (15.5\%) were the second most common, and Enterococcus faecalis species (8.62\%) were the most common among gram-positive bacteria. Nitrofurantoin (97\%) was highly sensitive, followed by ciprofloxacin (93\%). On the other hand, cefixime (97\%), cotrimoxazole (81\%), amoxicillin (72\%), aztreonam (72\%), and ceftriaxone (67\%) were highly resistant to uropathogens.\par
Conclusions: In Bangladesh's northernmost regions, previously used amoxicillin and cephalosporin groups of drugs are no longer helpful in treating UTIs among children, as this study suggested nitrofurantoin and ciprofloxacin as the most appropriate antibiotics.\par
devastating consequences such as chronic renal failure (CRF) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) \hyperref[b23]{(Nazme et al., 2017;}\hyperref[b30]{Saadeh \& Mattoo, 2011;}\hyperref[b34]{Shrestha et al., 2013;}\hyperref[b37]{Spoorenberg et al., 2013)}.\par
Escherichia coli (E. coli) has been reported to be the most common pathogen for symptomatic UTI (90\%) in children. Other common bacteria are Proteus, Klebsiella, Pseudomonas, and Enterobacter \hyperref[b1]{(Akram et al., 2007;}\hyperref[b18]{Islam et al., 2010;}\hyperref[b23]{Nazme et al., 2017;}\hyperref[b38]{Srivastava \& Bagga, 2016)}. Viruses and fungi may also cause UTIs among children \hyperref[b9]{(Clark et al., 2010)}. Traditionally, UTI has been treated empirically with either injectable or oral antibiotics such as the cephalosporin group of drugs, levofloxacin, trimethoprimsulfamethoxazole (cotrimoxazole), and nitrofurantoin \hyperref[b42]{(Wagenlehner et al., 2008)}. Several studies conducted in tertiary care hospitals located in the central region of Bangladesh found that these antibiotics are no longer beneficial to treat UTIs in children due to high resistance levels against causative uropathogens \hyperref[b17]{(Islam et al., 2019;}\hyperref[b23]{Nazme et al., 2017;}\hyperref[b33]{Shams et al., 2021)}.\par
To our knowledge, no study has been conducted in the Rangpur division, the northernmost part of Bangladesh, where the total number of children under 14  {\ref was 4,220,773 (ZhujiWorld, 2023)}. Therefore, the study objective was to determine the spectrum of causative agents of UTIs, their antimicrobial sensitivity, and resistance patterns in pediatric patients of a tertiary care hospital located in the northernmost part of Bangladesh so that pediatricians can predict the causative organisms before providing empirical treatment, thus preventing long-term complications from UTIs. 
\section[{II.}]{II.} 
\section[{Materials and Methods}]{Materials and Methods} 
\section[{a) Study design and participants}]{a) Study design and participants}\par
It is a single-center, cross-sectional study conducted at the Combined Military Hospital (CMH), Rangpur, a tertiary care hospital located in the Rangpur division, Bangladesh's 7 th and northernmost division \hyperref[b43]{(Wikiwand, 2023)}. This observational study was conducted between February 2021 and January 2022. A total of 200 children aged 0 months to 12 years with clinically suspected UTIs either attended the pediatric outpatient department or were admitted to the indoor department during the study period and were enrolled as the study participants after the researchers received either their parents' or caregivers' verbal informed consent. 
\section[{b) Clinical data collection}]{b) Clinical data collection}\par
Researchers reviewed the study participants' medical records to collect their demographic data (age \& sex) and clinical data, including common, urinary, and general complaints. Thereafter, study participants' urine samples were sent for routine and microscopic examination and culture sensitivity testing. In the case of neonates, urine analysis was performed if patients presented clinical evidence of sepsis.\par
Before collecting urine samples, mothers or caregivers received brief training to follow the steps related to sample collection aseptically and properly before depositing them in the laboratory on time. Older children  {\ref (7-12 years}) were asked to collect early morning midstream urine samples after properly cleaning their external urethra and perineum with plain water without soap. In the case of young infant patients, the best way was to obtain urine for culture aseptically by urethral percutaneous supra-pubic bladder aspiration to avoid the potential chance of contaminated urine cultures that often happens from bag specimens. However, it was not possible to perform this, as the parents did not provide consent to this procedure. Hence, under the supervision of parents, these young children were advised to clean the perineum and peri-urethral area before collecting urine samples by using sterile plastic bags or wideopened mouth containers supplied by the laboratory.\par
All samples were collected within 30 minutes of voiding urine. The collected urine samples were then transported to the pathology laboratory of the same hospital and stored at 4°C after adding a few drops of acetic acid, which prevented the growth of organisms. These urine samples were analyzed by microscopic examination followed by bacteriological culture and antibiotic sensitivity testing. 
\section[{c) Statistical analysis}]{c) Statistical analysis}\par
We analyzed the data in MS Excel 2010 and SPSS version 24.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago). We conducted descriptive analysis and summarized the categorical data in counts and percentages.\par
Urine culture and sensitivity are the gold standards for diagnosing UTIs \hyperref[b32]{(Schmiemann et al., 2010)}. Antibiotic selection should depend on the pattern of uropathogens and their antimicrobial sensitivities in the local environment. Usually, antimicrobial vulnerability testing of urine is achieved within 48-36 hours of sampling \hyperref[b0]{(Akoachere et al., 2012)}. Therefore, in most UTI cases, treatment choice is empirical and experimental, influenced by available data reflecting antibiotic sensitivity and resistance in geographical regions. On culture, a group count of >10 5 colony forming units (CFU)/ml organisms of a single uropathogen in the midstream urine of girls and >10 4 CFU/ml organisms in boys are measured as confirmatory of UTI \hyperref[b23]{(Nazme et al., 2017;}\hyperref[b38]{Srivastava \& Bagga, 2016)}. A pure growth of >10 5 CFU/ml is considered 95\% susceptibility, and 10 4 -10 5 CFU/ml is categorized as 'infection likely' from catheterized urine samples \hyperref[b8]{(Cheng \& Wong, 2005)} or growth of any number of uropathogens from urine obtained by suprapubic aspiration is considered significant bacteriuria (Christopher D Doern \& Susan E Richardson, 2016). 
\section[{III.}]{III.} 
\section[{Results}]{Results}\par
In this study, urine samples from 200 children with suspected UTIs were sent for routine microscopic analysis followed by bacteriological culture and antibiotic sensitivity testing. Among them, only 94 children (47\%) were diagnosed with presumptive UTIs due to the presence of significant pyuria [>5 WBCs/high power field (HPF)](C. D. Doern \& S. E. Richardson, 2016). In this results section, we present the study findings of these 94 presumptive UTI cases when the urinalysis result was positive for pyuria; among them, 35 (37\%) were indoor admitted patients, 59 (62.7\%) were outdoor department patients, 36 (38.3\%) were male, and 58 (61.7\%) were female. Out of 94 presumptive UTI cases, urine culture was positive due to significant organism growth in 58 cases (29\% of all suspected cases and 62\% of presumptive UTI cases), and these were considered "confirmed UTIs". Table \hyperref[tab_1]{2} presents the prevalence of gramnegative and gram-positive pathogens that were isolated during urine cultures. Escherichia coli (E. coli) was the most isolated (62\%) pathogen. Among gramnegative bacteria, E. coli was followed by Klebsiella species (15.5\%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (5.17\%), and Enterobacter species (3.45\%). Among grampositive bacteria, Enterococcus faecalis species (8.62\%) were the most common, followed by Acinetobacter (1.72\%) and Staphylococcus species (1.72\%).  \hyperref[tab_2]{3} presents the antibiotic sensitivity pattern of isolates among 58 confirmed UTI cases. We found that nitrofurantoin was highly sensitive in almost all cases (97\%), followed by ciprofloxacin, which was sensitive in 93\% of cases. The next most sensitive antibiotics were amikacin (88\%), gentamycin (74\%), and levofloxacin (66\%). On the other hand, we found that uropathogens were highly resistant to cefixime (97\%), Table \hyperref[tab_0]{1} shows the age and sex distribution analysis of the presumptive UTI cases, where we found the highest (57\%) presumptive UTI cases among the younger age group (<5 years) and the lowest (17\%) cases among the older age group (>10 years); the presumptive UTI cases were also higher among female children than among male children, leading to a male: female ratio of 0.62:1. We also found a similar age distribution among the urine culture-positive and urine culture-negative cases, i.e., the younger group (<5 years) suffered the most. Regarding the sex distribution analysis, the male: female ratio was 0.87:1 among 58 patients with uropathogens in their urine cultures (culture-positive), and the male: female ratio was 0.33:1 among 36 urine culture-negative cases. cotrimoxazole (81\%), amoxicillin (72\%), aztreonam (72\%), and ceftriaxone (67\%).  \hyperref[tab_3]{4} presents the detailed antibiotic sensitivity pattern of isolates by different types of bacteria, where we found that E. coli was highly sensitive (100\%) to nitrofurantoin and highly resistant (100\%) to amoxicillin and cefixime. Klebsiella species were highly sensitive (100\%) to ciprofloxacin, gentamycin, levofloxacin, and nitrofurantoin and highly resistant (100\%) to azithromycin, cotrimoxazole, ceftriaxone, cefixime, and cefuroxime. Pseudomonas isolates were highly sensitive (100\%) to ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin and highly resistant (100\%) to cotrimoxazole, cephalosporin group, and nalidixic acid.\par
Enterobacter species were highly sensitive (100\%) to aztreonam, ciprofloxacin, cotrimoxazole, cephalexin, gentamicin, and nitrofurantoin and highly resistant (100\%) to amoxicillin. Proteus species were highly sensitive (100\%) to amikacin, azithromycin, ciprofloxacin, cotrimoxazole, ceftriaxone, levofloxacin, meropenem, nitrofurantoin, and vancomycin; they were extremely resistant (100\%) to amoxycillin, aztreonam, cefixime, cephalexin, cephalexin, cephradine, ceftazidime, colistin, gentamycin, imipenem, netilmicin, nalidixic acid, and penicillin.  Regarding gram-positive bacteria, Enterococcus faecalis species were found to be extremely sensitive (100\%) to nitrofurantoin and enormously resistant (100\%) to cefixime, cefuroxime, and ceftazidime. The Acinetobacter isolate was found to be extremely sensitive (100\%) to amikacin, azithromycin, ciprofloxacin, ceftriaxone, cephradine, ceftazidime, colistin, gentamicin, imipenem, levofloxacin, netilmicin, nitrofurantoin, and vancomycin; it was highly resistant (100\%) to aztreonam, cefixime, cefuroxime, cephalexin, and meropenem. Staphylococcus species were extremely sensitive (100\%) to amikacin, ciprofloxacin, cotrimoxazole, cephradine, colistin, erythromycin, gentamicin, imipenem, levofloxacin, meropenem, netilmicin, nalidixic acid, nitrofurantoin, penicillin, and vancomycin; they were enormously resistant (100\%) to amoxycillin, cefixime, cefuroxime, cephalexin, and ceftazidime.(n=9) (n=3) (n=2) (n=1) (n=5) (n=1) (n=1) N (\%) N (\%) N (\%) N (\%) N (\%) N (\%) N (\%) N\textbf{(}\par
Out of 23 antibiotics, we found that the most effective antibiotics were nitrofurantoin, which was highly sensitive (100\%) to seven out of eight bacteria (E. coli, Klebsiella, Enterobacter species, Proteus, Enterococcus, Acinetobacter, and Staphylococcus species), followed by ciprofloxacin, which was highly sensitive (100\%) to six out of eight bacteria (Klebsiella, Pseudomonas, Enterobacter species, Proteus, Acinetobacter, and Staphylococcus species). Levofloxacin was highly sensitive (100\%) to five out of eight bacteria (Klebsiella, Pseudomonas, Proteus, Acinetobacter, and Staphylococcus species), and gentamicin was highly sensitive (100\%) to four out of eight bacteria (Klebsiella, Enterobacter species, Acinetobacter, and Staphylococcus species). However, gentamicin is highly resistant (100\%) to Proteus.\par
Three antibiotics were highly sensitive (100\%) to three bacteria: vancomycin (sensitive to Proteus, Acinetobacter, and Staphylococcus species), cotrimoxazole (sensitive to Enterobacter species, Proteus, and Staphylococcus species), and amikacin (sensitive to Proteus, Acinetobacter, and Staphylococcus species). However, Klebsiella and Pseudomonas were highly resistant (100\%) to cotrimoxazole.\par
On the other hand, we found that the most resistant antibiotics were cefixime (highly resistant [100\%] against seven bacteria: E. coli, Klebsiella, Pseudomonas, Proteus, Enterococcus, Acinetobacter, and Staphylococcus species); however, we did not conduct an antibiotic sensitivity test on Enterobacter species or cefuroxime (highly resistant [100\%] against five bacteria: Klebsiella, Pseudomonas, Enterococcus, Acinetobacter, and Staphylococcusspecies), although we did not conduct an antibiotic sensitivity test on Enterobacter species and Proteus.\par
We also found that amoxycillin was highly resistant (100\%) against four bacteria, E. coli, Enterobacter species, Proteus, and Staphylococcus species, although we did not conduct an antibiotic sensitivity test on Klebsiella, Pseudomonas, and Acinetobacter, and cephalexin was highly resistant (100\%) against four bacteria, Pseudomonas, Proteus, Acinetobacter, and Staphylococcus species, although we did not conduct an antibiotic sensitivity test on Klebsiella. Cephalexin is highly (100\%) sensitive only to Enterobacter species. We found that ceftazidime was highly resistant (100\%) against four bacteria, Pseudomonas, Proteus, Enterococcus, and Staphylococcus species, and highly (100\%) sensitive to Acinetobacter, although we did not conduct an antibiotic sensitivity test on E. coli, Klebsiella and Enterobacter species.\par
IV. 
\section[{Discussion}]{Discussion}\par
Our study presents the bacteriological profile and antibiotic sensitivity patterns of urinary tract infections in children aged 12 years and below living in the northernmost part of Bangladesh. This study found that almost half (47\%) of the suspected UTI study respondents (n=200) had significant pyuria. This study finding is lower than that of the studies that were conducted in other tertiary hospitals in Bangladesh, such as 92\% in Mymensingh Medical College under the Dhaka division \hyperref[b18]{(Islam et al., 2010)}, 79\% in Dhaka Shishu Hospital, Dhaka \hyperref[b17]{(Islam et al., 2019)}, and 67\% in Combined Military Hospital, Dhaka \hyperref[b23]{(Nazme et al., 2017)}. This difference is because most patients prefer to visit tertiary hospitals located in the Dhaka division due to the high quality of services and the presence of skilled and efficient healthcare professionals. The prevalence of pyuria among children is also higher in other Asian countries, such as Nepal (95.6\%) \hyperref[b35]{(Singh \& Madhup, 2013)}.\par
These urine samples were further processed for urine culture, where we found that 58 samples had confirmed UTIs, i.e., 29\% of suspected cases and 62\% of presumptive UTI cases, due to positive urine culture. This study finding varies in other studies conducted in Bangladesh and Nepal; this may be attributed to the sample size and age of study respondents. Positive urine culture varies from 32\% of suspected cases with children under 15 years \hyperref[b23]{(Nazme et al., 2017)} to 84\% of suspected cases with children under 18 years \hyperref[b25]{(Paul et al., 2019)}. Both studies were conducted in two different tertiary care hospitals located in Dhaka. A similar variation was also found in Nepal, ranging from 29\% to 45\% \hyperref[b26]{(Rai et al., 2008;}\hyperref[b35]{Singh \& Madhup, 2013)}.\par
The prevalence of UTIs varies with the age and sex of children. Almost half (45\%) of the culture-positive cases were found in the age group below five years. This finding could be because younger children are not toilet trained, and ascending infection with fecal flora is more common in this age group. Similar findings are also reflected in other studies conducted in tertiary hospitals  {\ref (} We also found that UTIs were 1.6 times more frequent in We found that Pseudomonas isolates were highly sensitive (100\%) to ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin and highly resistant (100\%) to cotrimoxazole, cephalosporin, and nalidixic acid. The findings of Nazme et al. \hyperref[b23]{(Nazme et al., 2017)} are similar to those of this study, except that they found that Pseudomonas is also highly sensitive to amikacin. Enterobacter species were highly sensitive (100\%) to aztreonam, ciprofloxacin, cotrimoxazole, cephalexin, gentamicin, and nitrofurantoin and highly resistant (100\%) to amoxicillin. Villegas et al. also found similar results with Enterobacter \hyperref[b41]{(Villegas \& Quinn, 2002)}.\par
In this study, Proteus species were highly sensitive (100\%) to amikacin, azithromycin, ciprofloxacin, cotrimoxazole, ceftriaxone, levofloxacin, meropenem, nitrofurantoin, and vancomycin; they were extremely resistant (100\%) to amoxycillin, aztreonam, females. The reasons behind this might be that a female child has a short urethra, is easily contaminated with fecal matter, and is not properly cleaned up after passing urine. These results are consistent with the study findings of Islam et al. \hyperref[b17]{(Islam et al., 2019)} and Nazme et al. \hyperref[b23]{(Nazme et al., 2017)}. However, two studies conducted in India found males to be prevalent \hyperref[b26]{(Rai et al., 2008;}\hyperref[b28]{Rekha et al., 2010)}; this may be due to an increase in seeking treatment for male children.\par
In this study, E. coli was the most isolated (62\%) uropathogen. In different studies, the percentage of E. coli varies from 30\% to 90\%  {\ref (}  \hyperref[b17]{(Islam et al., 2019)}.\par
This study found that E. coli was highly sensitive (100\%) to nitrofurantoin and highly resistant (100\%) to amoxicillin and cefixime; in contrast, Shrestha et al. \hyperref[b34]{(Shrestha et al., 2013)} and Nazme et al. \hyperref[b23]{(Nazme et al., 2017)} found that E. coli was most sensitive not only to nitrofurantoin but also to ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, and amikacin. Das et al. reported that the sensitivity of E. coli to meropenem, amikacin, colistin, azithromycin, levofloxacin, cotrimoxazole, and ampicillin was high \hyperref[b10]{(Das et al., 2017)}. The next most common uropathogen was Klebsiella. This study found that Klebsiella species were highly sensitive (100\%) to ciprofloxacin, gentamycin, levofloxacin, and nitrofurantoin and highly resistant (100\%) to azithromycin, cotrimoxazole, ceftriaxone, cefixime, and cefuroxime. An Indian study reported that Klebsiella was the most sensitive to Ofloxacin, Amikacin, and Piperacillin+Tazobactum \hyperref[b24]{(Patel \& Garala, 2014} Nitrofurantoin is also recommended as the first choice among oral antibiotics for prophylaxis and treatment of UTIs in children due to its higher sensitivity  {\ref (Laila et}   \hyperref[b6]{Blondeau, 2004)}. Our study also found that the most effective antibiotics are nitrofurantoin, which is highly sensitive (100\%) to seven out of eight bacteria except for Pseudomonas, followed by ciprofloxacin, which is highly sensitive (100\%) to six out of eight bacteria except for E. coli and Enterococcus.\par
Compared to another study conducted in Bangladesh \hyperref[b23]{(Nazme et al., 2017)}, this study found that levofloxacin was highly sensitive (100\%) to five out of eight bacteria except for E. coli and Enterococcus; however, the sensitivity test was not performed on Enterobacter. Gentamicin was highly sensitive (100\%) to four out of eight bacteria except for E. coli, Pseudomonas, Enterococcus, and Proteus, and a similar study finding was noticed in Yuksel et al. \hyperref[b44]{(Yüksel et al., 2006)}.\par
On the other hand, we found that the most resistant antibiotics were cefixime (highly resistant [100\%] against seven bacteria: E. coli, Klebsiella, Pseudomonas, Proteus, Enterococcus, Acinetobacter, and Staphylococcus species); however, we did not conduct an antibiotic sensitivity test on Enterobacter species or cefuroxime (highly resistant [100\%] against five bacteria: Klebsiella, Pseudomonas, Enterococcus, Acinetobacter, and Staphylococcus species), although we did not conduct an antibiotic sensitivity test on Enterobacter species and Proteus. This high resistance profile was also confirmed by other studies \hyperref[b16]{(Ibeneme et al., 2014;}\hyperref[b24]{Patel \& Garala, 2014;}\hyperref[b34]{Shrestha et al., 2013)}.\par
V. 
\section[{Conclusion}]{Conclusion}\par
Our study concluded that pediatricians working in Bangladesh's northernmost regions should be cautious when treating and managing UTIs among children. Instead of prescribing amoxicillin and cephalosporin groups of drugs that are highly resistant to uropathogens, they should prescribe nitrofurantoin and ciprofloxacin as the most appropriate antibiotics for preventing long-term complications from UTIs. 
\section[{Statements and Declarations}]{Statements and Declarations}\par
Funding: The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received to conduct this study and during the preparation of this manuscript.\par
Competing Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest to announce. They did not receive any financial or non-financial benefits or will receive from any party directly or indirectly related to the subject of this article; hence, they have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.\par
Authors' Contributions: All authors (KN, ARH, and NKJ) contributed to the conceptualization of the study and research design. KN was involved in the methodology, mainly in data collection and statistical analysis. KN also completed the original draft writing, and ARH and NKJ reviewed and edited the writing. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript. 
\section[{Ethical approval:}]{Ethical approval:}\par
The authors received ethical approval from the General Officer Commanding (GOC) \& Area Commander of the Combined Military Hospital. The ethics ID number is 230190-1093/06/199/02. Data availability: All the data that were collected during this study are presented in the paper.  \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.1457142857142857\textwidth}P{0.18457142857142855\textwidth}P{0.10685714285714286\textwidth}P{0.09714285714285714\textwidth}P{0.09876190476190476\textwidth}P{0.11171428571428571\textwidth}P{0.10523809523809524\textwidth}}
Age group\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Presumptive UTI (n = 94)}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Male (n=36)}\tabcellsep Female (n=58)\tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep Number\tabcellsep \%\tabcellsep Number\tabcellsep \%\tabcellsep Number\tabcellsep \%\\
<5 years\tabcellsep 54\tabcellsep 57.45\%\tabcellsep 18\tabcellsep 19\%\tabcellsep 36\tabcellsep 38.3\%\\
5-10 years\tabcellsep 24\tabcellsep 25.55\%\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 11.7\%\tabcellsep 13\tabcellsep 13.82\%\\
>10 years\tabcellsep 16\tabcellsep 17\%\tabcellsep 7\tabcellsep 7.45\%\tabcellsep 9\tabcellsep 9.57\%\\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Urine culture positive}\tabcellsep Male\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Female\tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep (n=58)\tabcellsep \tabcellsep (n=27)\tabcellsep \tabcellsep (n=31)\tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep Number\tabcellsep \%\tabcellsep Number\tabcellsep \%\tabcellsep Number\tabcellsep \%\\
<5 years\tabcellsep 26\tabcellsep 44.83\%\tabcellsep 13\tabcellsep 22.41\%\tabcellsep 13\tabcellsep 22.41\%\\
5-10 years\tabcellsep 20\tabcellsep 34.48\%\tabcellsep 9\tabcellsep 15.52\%\tabcellsep 11\tabcellsep 18.97\%\\
>10 years\tabcellsep 12\tabcellsep 20.69\%\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 8.62\%\tabcellsep 7\tabcellsep 12.06\%\\
\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Urine culture negative}\tabcellsep Male\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Female\tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep (n=36)\tabcellsep \tabcellsep (n=9)\tabcellsep \tabcellsep (n=27)\tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep Number\tabcellsep \%\tabcellsep Number\tabcellsep \%\tabcellsep Number\tabcellsep \%\\
<5 years\tabcellsep 28\tabcellsep 77.78\%\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 13.88\%\tabcellsep 23\tabcellsep 63.88\%\\
5-10 years\tabcellsep 4\tabcellsep 11.11\%\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep 5.56\%\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep 5.56\%\\
>10 years\tabcellsep 4\tabcellsep 11.11\%\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep 5.56\%\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep 5.56\%\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_0}Table 1 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{2} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.09377224199288256\textwidth}P{0.4930604982206406\textwidth}P{0.06654804270462633\textwidth}P{0.19661921708185054\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Name of Pathogens\tabcellsep Number (n=58)\tabcellsep Percentage (\%)\\
Gram-negative\tabcellsep E. Coli\tabcellsep 36\tabcellsep 62.07\%\\
\tabcellsep Klebsiella species\tabcellsep 9\tabcellsep 15.52\%\\
\tabcellsep Pseudomonas aeruginosa\tabcellsep 3\tabcellsep 5.17\%\\
\tabcellsep Enterobacter species\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep 3.45\%\\
\tabcellsep Proteus species\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 1.72\%\\
Gram-positive\tabcellsep Enterococcus faecalis species\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 8.63\%\\
\tabcellsep Staphylococcus species\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 1.72\%\\
\tabcellsep Acinetobacter\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 1.72\%\\
Table\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_1}Table 2 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{3} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.04798387096774193\textwidth}P{0.2970430107526882\textwidth}P{0.05940860215053763\textwidth}P{0.08797043010752688\textwidth}P{0.05940860215053763\textwidth}P{0.07768817204301075\textwidth}P{0.04684139784946236\textwidth}P{0.013709677419354837\textwidth}P{0.11081989247311827\textwidth}P{0.049126344086021505\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep Name of antibiotics\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Sensitivity n \%}\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Intermediate sensitivity n \%}\tabcellsep n\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Resistant \%}\tabcellsep Not done n\\
1\tabcellsep Amikacin\tabcellsep 51\tabcellsep 88\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 1.72\tabcellsep 6\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 10.34\tabcellsep 0\\
2\tabcellsep Amoxycillin\tabcellsep 3\tabcellsep 5.17\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{42}\tabcellsep 72.4\tabcellsep 13\\
3\tabcellsep Azithromycin\tabcellsep 17\tabcellsep 29.3\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 1.72\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{35}\tabcellsep 62.0\tabcellsep 5\\
4\tabcellsep Aztreonam\tabcellsep 8\tabcellsep 13.8\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep 3.44\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{42}\tabcellsep 72.4\tabcellsep 6\\
5\tabcellsep Ciprofloxacin\tabcellsep 54\tabcellsep 93\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep 3.44\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 3.44\tabcellsep 0\\
6\tabcellsep Cotrimoxazole\tabcellsep 9\tabcellsep 15.52\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 1.72\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{47}\tabcellsep 81.03\tabcellsep 1\\
7\tabcellsep Cloxacin\tabcellsep 7\tabcellsep 12\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 3.44\tabcellsep 49\\
8\tabcellsep Ceftriaxone\tabcellsep 16\tabcellsep 27.6\tabcellsep 3\tabcellsep 5.17\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{39}\tabcellsep 67.24\tabcellsep 0\\
9\tabcellsep Cefixime\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{56}\tabcellsep 96.6\tabcellsep 2\\
10\tabcellsep Cefuroxime\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep 3.44\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{53}\tabcellsep 1.37\tabcellsep 3\\
11\tabcellsep Cephalexin\tabcellsep 26\tabcellsep 44.83\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{12}\tabcellsep 20.7\tabcellsep 20\\
12\tabcellsep Ceftazidime\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 1.72\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{10}\tabcellsep 17.24\tabcellsep 47\\
13\tabcellsep Colistin\tabcellsep 7\tabcellsep 12\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep 3.44\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{15}\tabcellsep 25.86\tabcellsep 34\\
14\tabcellsep Erythromycin\tabcellsep 16\tabcellsep 27.6\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 1.72\tabcellsep 4\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 6.89\tabcellsep 37\\
15\tabcellsep Gentamicin\tabcellsep 43\tabcellsep 74\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep 3.44\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{13}\tabcellsep 22.4\tabcellsep 0\\
16\tabcellsep Imipenem\tabcellsep 17\tabcellsep 29.3\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep 3.44\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{18}\tabcellsep 31.03\tabcellsep 21\\
17\tabcellsep Levofloxacin\tabcellsep 38\tabcellsep 65.6\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 1.72\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{16}\tabcellsep 27.6\tabcellsep 3\\
18\tabcellsep Meropenem\tabcellsep 33\tabcellsep 56.9\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep 3.44\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{17}\tabcellsep 29.3\tabcellsep 6\\
19\tabcellsep Netilmicin\tabcellsep 13\tabcellsep 22.4\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{23}\tabcellsep 39.66\tabcellsep 22\\
20\tabcellsep Nalidixic acid\tabcellsep 29\tabcellsep 50\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep 3.44\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{21}\tabcellsep 36.20\tabcellsep 6\\
21\tabcellsep Nitrofurantoin\tabcellsep 56\tabcellsep 96.56\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 3.44\tabcellsep 0\\
22\tabcellsep Penicillin\tabcellsep 3\tabcellsep 5.17\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 1.72\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{16}\tabcellsep 27.6\tabcellsep 38\\
23\tabcellsep Vancomycin\tabcellsep 5\tabcellsep 8.62\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 0\tabcellsep 53\\
Table\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_2}Table 3 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{4} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.1136627906976744\textwidth}P{0.06424418604651162\textwidth}P{0.15813953488372093\textwidth}P{0.14825581395348839\textwidth}P{0.034593023255813954\textwidth}P{0.3311046511627907\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Gram-Positive bacteria}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Gram-Negative bacteria\\
Antibiotics Sensitivity\tabcellsep E coli (n=36)\tabcellsep Klebsiella\tabcellsep Pseudomonas Enterobacte r spp.\tabcellsep Proteus\tabcellsep Enterococcus Acinetobacter Staphylococcus spp\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_3}Table 4 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{}
\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_4}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{}
\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_5}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.7489189189189189\textwidth}P{0.022972972972972974\textwidth}P{0.0425\textwidth}P{0.03560810810810811\textwidth}}
cefixime,\tabcellsep cephalexin,\tabcellsep cephalexin,\tabcellsep cephradine,\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{ceftazidime, colistin, gentamycin, imipenem, netilmicin,}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{nalidixic acid, and penicillin. A similar finding was found}\\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{by Nazme et al. (Nazme et al., 2017).}\tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Regarding}\tabcellsep gram-positive\tabcellsep bacteria,\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{Enterococcus faecalis species were found to be}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{extremely sensitive (100\%) to nitrofurantoin and}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{enormously resistant (100\%) to cefixime, cefuroxime,}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{and ceftazidime. Staphylococcus species were extremely sensitive}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{(100\%) to amikacin, ciprofloxacin, cotrimoxazole,}\\
cephradine,\tabcellsep colistin,\tabcellsep erythromycin,\tabcellsep gentamicin,\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{imipenem, levofloxacin, meropenem, netilmicin, nalidixic}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{acid, nitrofurantoin, penicillin, and vancomycin; they}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{were enormously resistant (100\%) to amoxycillin,}\\
\multicolumn{4}{l}{cefixime, cefuroxime, cephalexin, and ceftazidime.}\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_6}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{} \par 
\begin{longtable}{}
\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_7}}\end{figure}
 		 		\backmatter   			 
\subsection[{Acknowledgments:}]{Acknowledgments:}\par
The authors are intensely grateful to all study respondents and their parents/caregivers for participating in this study. 			  			 			 			  				\begin{bibitemlist}{1}
\bibitem[Yüksel et al. ()]{b44}\label{b44} 	 		‘Antibiotic resistance of urinary tract pathogens and evaluation of empirical treatment in Turkish children with urinary tract infections’.  		 			S Yüksel 		,  		 			B Öztürk 		,  		 			A Kavaz 		,  		 			Z B Özçakar 		,  		 			B Acar 		,  		 			H Güriz 		,  		 			D Aysev 		,  		 			M Ekim 		,  		 			F Yalç?nkaya 		.  	 	 		\textit{International journal of antimicrobial agents}  		2006. 28  (5)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Islam et al. ()]{b17}\label{b17} 	 		‘Antibiotic resistance pattern in children with UTI: A study in a tertiary care hospital’.  		 			M A Islam 		,  		 			S Begum 		,  		 			S S Parul 		,  		 			A T Bhuyian 		,  		 			M T Islam 		,  		 			M K Islam 		.  	 	 		\textit{American Journal of Pediatrics}  		2019. Dhaka, Bangladesh. 5  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Wagenlehner et al. ()]{b42}\label{b42} 	 		‘Antiinfective treatment of bacterial urinary tract infections’.  		 			F Wagenlehner 		,  		 			A Pilatz 		,  		 			K Naber 		,  		 			G Perletti 		,  		 			C Wagenlehner 		,  		 			W Weidner 		.  	 	 		\textit{Current medicinal chemistry}  		2008. 15  (14)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Randrianirina et al. ()]{b27}\label{b27} 	 		‘Antimicrobial resistance among uropathogens that cause communityacquired urinary tract infections in Antananarivo, Madagascar’.  		 			F Randrianirina 		,  		 			J.-L Soares 		,  		 			J.-F Carod 		,  		 			E Ratsima 		,  		 			V Thonnier 		,  		 			P Combe 		,  		 			P Grosjean 		,  		 			A Talarmin 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy}  		2007. 59  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Spoorenberg et al. ()]{b37}\label{b37} 	 		‘Appropriate Antibiotic Use for Patients With Urinary Tract Infections Reduces Length of Hospital Stay’.  		 			V Spoorenberg 		,  		 			M E J L Hulscher 		,  		 			R P Akkermans 		,  		 			J M Prins 		,  		 			S E Geerlings 		.  		 \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cid/cit688}{10.1093/cid/cit688}.  		 \url{https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cit688}  	 	 		\textit{Clinical Infectious Diseases}  		2013. 58  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Belete et al. ()]{b5}\label{b5} 	 		‘Bacterial profile and antibiotic susceptibility pattern of urinary tract infection among children attending Felege Hiwot Referral Hospital’.  		 			Y Belete 		,  		 			D Asrat 		,  		 			Y Woldeamanuel 		,  		 			G Yihenew 		,  		 			A Gize 		.  	 	 		\textit{Infection and drug resistance}  		2019. Bahir Dar, Northwest Ethiopia. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Shams et al. ()]{b33}\label{b33} 	 		‘Bacteriological Profile and Antibiotic Resistance Pattern in Children with Urinary Tract Infection in a Tertiary Care Hospital’.  		 			F Shams 		,  		 			S Afroz 		,  		 			R Akter 		,  		 			S F Tangim 		,  		 			D Sarkar 		,  		 			S Paul 		.  	 	 		\textit{Sir Salimullah Medical College Journal}  		2021. 29  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Patel and Garala ()]{b24}\label{b24} 	 		‘Bacteriological profile and antibiotic susceptibility pattern (antibiogram) of urinary tract infections in paediatric patients’.  		 			P Patel 		,  		 			R Garala 		.  	 	 		\textit{J of Resear in Medical and Dental Sci}  		2014. 2  (1) .  	 
\bibitem[Nazme et al. ()]{b23}\label{b23} 	 		‘Bacteriological profile of urinary tract infection in children of a tertiary care hospital’.  		 			N I Nazme 		,  		 			A Al Amin 		,  		 			F Jalil 		,  		 			J Sultana 		,  		 			N N Fatema 		.  	 	 		\textit{Bangladesh Journal of Child Health}  		2017. 41  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Shrestha et al. ()]{b34}\label{b34} 	 		‘Bacteriological profile of urinary tract infection of children at GMC Teaching Hospital’.  		 			S Shrestha 		,  		 			A Shrestha 		,  		 			L Lamsal 		,  		 			M Joshi 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Chitwan Medical College}  		2013. 3  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Ibeneme et al. ()]{b16}\label{b16} 	 		‘Bacteriology of urinary tract infection and antimicrobial sensitivities in under-five children in Enugu’.  		 			C Ibeneme 		,  		 			T Oguonu 		,  		 			A Ikefuna 		,  		 			H Okafor 		,  		 			U Ozumba 		.  	 	 		\textit{Nigerian Journal of Paediatrics}  		2014. 41  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Rai et al. ()]{b26}\label{b26} 	 		‘Causative agents of urinary tract infections in children and their antibiotic sensitivity pattern: a hospital based study’.  		 			G Rai 		,  		 			H Upreti 		,  		 			S Rai 		,  		 			K Shah 		,  		 			R Shrestha 		.  	 	 		\textit{Nepal Med Coll J}  		2008. 10  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Bay and Anacleto ()]{b4}\label{b4} 	 		‘Clinical and laboratory profile of urinary tract infection among children at the outpatient clinic of a tertiary hospital’.  		 			A G Bay 		,  		 			F Anacleto 		.  	 	 		\textit{PIDSP journal}  		2010. 11  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Singh and Madhup ()]{b35}\label{b35} 	 		‘Clinical profile and antibiotics sensitivity in childhood urinary tract infection at Dhulikhel Hospital’.  		 			S Singh 		,  		 			S Madhup 		.  	 	 		\textit{Kathmandu University Medical Journal}  		2013. 11  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Das et al. ()]{b10}\label{b10} 	 		‘Clinical risk factors, bacterial aetiology, and outcome of urinary tract infection in children hospitalized with diarrhoea in Bangladesh’.  		 			R Das 		,  		 			T Ahmed 		,  		 			H Saha 		,  		 			L Shahrin 		,  		 			F Afroze 		,  		 			A Shahid 		,  		 			K Shahunja 		,  		 			P Bardhan 		,  		 			M Chisti 		.  	 	 		\textit{Epidemiology \& Infection}  		2017. 145  (5)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Paul et al. ()]{b25}\label{b25} 	 		‘Clinico-laboratory profile and drug sensitivity pattern in urinary tract infection of children in a tertiary care hospital’.  		 			N Paul 		,  		 			N Nusrat 		,  		 			M R Islam 		,  		 			F Rahman 		,  		 			N Rahman 		.  	 	 		\textit{Bangladesh Journal of Child Health}  		2019. 43  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Blondeau ()]{b6}\label{b6} 	 		‘Current issues in the management of urinary tract infections: extendedrelease ciprofloxacin as a novel treatment option’.  		 			J M Blondeau 		.  	 	 		\textit{Drugs}  		2004. 64  (6)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Cheng and Wong ()]{b8}\label{b8} 	 		‘Diagnosing symptomatic urinary tract infections in infants by catheter urine culture’.  		 			Y W Cheng 		,  		 			S N Wong 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of paediatrics and child health}  		2005. 41  (8)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Doern and Richardson ()]{b11}\label{b11} 	 		‘Diagnosis of Urinary Tract Infections in Children’.  		 			C D Doern 		,  		 			S E Richardson 		.  		 \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/jcm}{10.1128/jcm}.  		 \url{https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm}  	 	 		\textit{J Clin Microbiol}  		2016. 54  (9)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Doern and Richardson ()]{b12}\label{b12} 	 		‘Diagnosis of urinary tract infections in children’.  		 			C D Doern 		,  		 			S E Richardson 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of clinical microbiology}  		2016. 54  (9)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Foxman ()]{b13}\label{b13} 	 		‘Epidemiology of urinary tract infections: incidence, morbidity, and economic costs’.  		 			B Foxman 		.  	 	 		\textit{The American journal of medicine}  		2002. 113  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Akoachere et al. ()]{b0}\label{b0} 	 		‘Etiologic profile and antimicrobial susceptibility of community-acquired urinary tract infection in two Cameroonian towns’.  		 			J.-F T K Akoachere 		,  		 			S Yvonne 		,  		 			N H Akum 		,  		 			E N Seraphine 		.  	 	 		\textit{BMC Research notes}  		2012. 5  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Sorlózano-Puerto et al. ()]{b36}\label{b36} 	 		\textit{Etiological and resistance profile of bacteria involved in urinary tract infections in young children},  		 			A Sorlózano-Puerto 		,  		 			J M Gómez-Luque 		,  		 			J D D Lunadel-Castillo 		,  		 			J M Navarro-Marí 		,  		 			J Gutiérrez-Fernández 		.  		2017. 2017.  	 	 (BioMed research international) 
\bibitem[Akram et al. ()]{b1}\label{b1} 	 		‘Etiology and antibiotic resistance patterns of community-acquired urinary tract infections in JNMC Hospital Aligarh’.  		 			M Akram 		,  		 			M Shahid 		,  		 			A U Khan 		.  	 	 		\textit{India. Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials}  		2007. 6  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Kanellopoulos et al. ()]{b19}\label{b19} 	 		‘First urinary tract infection in neonates, infants and young children: a comparative study’.  		 			T A Kanellopoulos 		,  		 			C Salakos 		,  		 			I Spiliopoulou 		,  		 			A Ellina 		,  		 			N M Nikolakopoulou 		,  		 			D A Papanastasiou 		.  	 	 		\textit{Pediatric Nephrology}  		2006. 21 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Urmi et al. ()]{b40}\label{b40} 	 		‘Gram-positive uropathogens: empirical treatment and emerging antimicrobial resistance’.  		 			U L Urmi 		,  		 			N Jahan 		,  		 			S Nahar 		,  		 			M Rana 		,  		 			F Sultana 		,  		 			B Hossain 		,  		 			S Iqbal 		,  		 			M Hossain 		,  		 			A S M Mosaddek 		,  		 			S Islam 		.  	 	 		\textit{Biomed Res}  		2019. 4 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Baral et al. ()]{b3}\label{b3} 	 		‘High prevalence of multidrug resistance in bacterial uropathogens from Kathmandu’.  		 			P Baral 		,  		 			S Neupane 		,  		 			B P Marasini 		,  		 			K R Ghimire 		,  		 			B Lekhak 		,  		 			B Shrestha 		.  	 	 		\textit{Nepal. BMC Research notes}  		2012. 5  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Rossi et al. ()]{b29}\label{b29} 	 		‘In vitro susceptibilities of aerobic and facultatively anaerobic Gram-negative bacilli isolated from patients with intra-abdominal infections worldwide: 2004 results from SMART (Study for Monitoring Antimicrobial Resistance Trends)’.  		 			F Rossi 		,  		 			F Baquero 		,  		 			P.-R Hsueh 		,  		 			D L Paterson 		,  		 			G V Bochicchio 		,  		 			T A Snyder 		,  		 			V Satishchandran 		,  		 			K Mccarroll 		,  		 			M J Dinubile 		,  		 			J W Chow 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy}  		2006. 58  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Saadeh and Mattoo ()]{b30}\label{b30} 	 		‘Managing urinary tract infections’.  		 			S A Saadeh 		,  		 			T K Mattoo 		.  	 	 		\textit{Pediatric Nephrology}  		2011. 26 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Rekha et al. ()]{b28}\label{b28} 	 		‘Microbiological profile of the uropathogens isolated from pediatric patients from a tertiary care centre’.  		 			B Rekha 		,  		 			R Pai 		,  		 			B Scaria 		,  		 			A Shetty 		,  		 			H Pinto 		.  	 	 		\textit{Karnataka Paediatr J}  		2010. 24 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Sanchez et al. ()]{b31}\label{b31} 	 		‘Nitrofurantoin retains antimicrobial activity against multidrug-resistant urinary Escherichia coli from US outpatients’.  		 			G V Sanchez 		,  		 			A Baird 		,  		 			J Karlowsky 		,  		 			R Master 		,  		 			J Bordon 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy}  		2014. 69  (12)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Srivastava and Bagga ()]{b38}\label{b38} 	 		‘Pediatric nephrology’.  		 			R Srivastava 		,  		 			A Bagga 		.  	 	 		\textit{JP Medical Ltd}  		2016.  	 
\bibitem[Gautam and Pokhrel ()]{b14}\label{b14} 	 		‘Prevalence of urinary tract infection at Kanti Children's hospital’.  		 			K Gautam 		,  		 			B Pokhrel 		.  	 	 		\textit{J Chitwan Medical College}  		2012. 1  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Wikiwand ()]{b43}\label{b43} 	 		\textit{Rangpur division},  		 			Wikiwand 		.  		 \url{https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Rangpur\textunderscore Division}  		2023.  	 
\bibitem[Zhujiworld ()]{b45}\label{b45} 	 		\textit{Rangpur Division, Bangladesh-Statistics},  		 			Zhujiworld 		.  		 \url{https://zhujiworld.com/bd/2855830-rangpur-division/}  		2023.  	 	 (Retrieved 20 March) 
\bibitem[Al-Badr and Al-Shaikh ()]{b2}\label{b2} 	 		‘Recurrent urinary tract infections management in women: a review’.  		 			A Al-Badr 		,  		 			G Al-Shaikh 		.  	 	 		\textit{Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal}  		2013. 13  (3)  p. 359.  	 
\bibitem[Schmiemann et al. ()]{b32}\label{b32} 	 		‘The diagnosis of urinary tract infection: a systematic review’.  		 			G Schmiemann 		,  		 			E Kniehl 		,  		 			K Gebhardt 		,  		 			M M Matejczyk 		,  		 			E Hummers-Pradier 		.  	 	 		\textit{Deutsches Ärzteblatt International}  		2010. 107  (21)  p. 361.  	 
\bibitem[Islam et al. ()]{b18}\label{b18} 	 		‘Urinary tract infection in children in a tertiary level hospital in bangladesh’.  		 			M N Islam 		,  		 			M A Khaleque 		,  		 			M Siddika 		,  		 			M A Hossain 		.  	 	 		\textit{Mymensingh Med J}  		2010. 19  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Laila et al. ()]{b21}\label{b21} 	 		‘Urinary tract infection in children: An update’.  		 			K Laila 		,  		 			E Roy 		,  		 			M H Rahman 		,  		 			R R Roy 		.  	 	 		\textit{Bangladesh Journal of Child Health}  		2012. 36  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Clark et al. ()]{b9}\label{b9} 	 		‘Urinary tract infection in children: when to worry’.  		 			C J Clark 		,  		 			W A Kennedy 		,  		 			L D Shortliffe 		.  	 	 		\textit{Urologic Clinics}  		2010. 37  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Harrington and Hooton ()]{b15}\label{b15} 	 		‘Urinary tract infection risk factors and gender. The journal of gender-specific medicine: JGSM: the official journal of the Partnership for’.  		 			R D Harrington 		,  		 			T M Hooton 		.  	 	 		\textit{Women's Health at Columbia}  		2000. 3  (8)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Urinary Tract Infection. Retrieved 03 February from (2021)]{b7}\label{b7} 	 		 \url{https://www.cdc.gov/antibiotic-use/uti.html}  		\textit{Urinary Tract Infection. Retrieved 03 February from},  		2021, October 6, 2021.  		 			Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 		 	 
\bibitem[Kaur et al. ()]{b20}\label{b20} 	 		‘Urinary tract infection: aetiology and antimicrobial resistance pattern in infants from a tertiary care hospital in northern India’.  		 			N Kaur 		,  		 			S Sharma 		,  		 			S Malhotra 		,  		 			P Madan 		,  		 			C Hans 		.  		 DC01.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of clinical and diagnostic research: JCDR}  		2014. 8  (10) .  	 
\bibitem[Tan and Chlebicki ()]{b39}\label{b39} 	 		‘Urinary tract infections in adults’.  		 			C W Tan 		,  		 			M P Chlebicki 		.  	 	 		\textit{Singapore medical journal}  		2016. 57  (9)  p. 485.  	 
\bibitem[Moreno ()]{b22}\label{b22} 	 		‘Urinary Tract Infections in Children and Adolescents’.  		 			M A Moreno 		.  		 \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.2163}{10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.2163}.  		 \url{https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.2163}  	 	 		\textit{JAMA Pediatrics}  		2016. 170  (9)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Villegas and Quinn ()]{b41}\label{b41} 	 		 			M V Villegas 		,  		 			J P Quinn 		.  		\textit{Enterobacter species. Antimicrobial therapy and vaccines. Maryland: Apple Trees Productions LLC},  		2002. p. .  	 
\end{bibitemlist}
 			 		 	 
\end{document}
