Khảo sát tình hình đề kháng kháng sinh của vi khuẩn gây bệnh mụn trứng cá Probionibacterium acnes tại thành phố Cần Thơ - 11

VI KHUAN P.ACNES HIEN DIEN TREN DA

Total

CO

KHONG

CO DIEUTRI

CO

Count

38

47

85

% within CO DIEUTRI

44.7 %

55.3 %

100.0 %

% within VI KHUAN P.ACNES HIEN DIEN TREN DA

84.4 %

85.5 %

85.0 %

KHONG

Count

7

8

15

% within CO DIEUTRI

46.7 %

53.3 %

100.0 %

% within VI KHUAN P.ACNES HIEN DIEN TREN DA

15.6 %

14.5 %

15.0 %

Total

Count

45

55

100

% within CO DIEUTRI

45.0 %

55.0 %

100.0 %

% within VI KHUAN P.ACNES HIEN DIEN TREN DA

100.0 %

100.0 %

100.0 %

Value

df

Asymp. Sig. (2- sided)

Exact Sig. (2- sided)

Exact Sig. (1- sided)

Pearson Chi-Square

.020a

1

.888

1.000

.553

Continuity Correctionb

.000

1

1.000

Likelihood Ratio

.020

1

.888

Fisher's Exact Test

Linear-by-Linear Association

.020

1

.889

N of Valid Casesb

100

VI KHUAN P.ACNES HIEN DIEN TREN DA

Total

CO

KHONG

MUC DO MUN TRUNG CA

NHE

Count

12

15

27

% within MUC DO MUN TRUNG CA

44.4 %

55.6 %

100.0 %

% within VI KHUAN P.ACNES HIEN DIEN TREN DA

26.7 %

27.3 %

27.0 %

TRUNG BINH

Count

25

34

59

% within MUC DO MUN TRUNG CA

42.4 %

57.6 %

100.0 %

% within VI KHUAN P.ACNES HIEN DIEN TREN DA

55.6 %

61.8 %

59.0 %

NANG

Count

6

6

12

% within MUC DO MUN TRUNG CA

50.0 %

50.0 %

100.0 %

% within VI KHUAN P.ACNES HIEN DIEN TREN DA

13.3 %

10.9 %

12.0 %

RAT NANG

Count

2

0

2

% within MUC DO MUN TRUNG CA

100.0 %

.0 %

100.0 %

% within VI KHUAN P.ACNES HIEN DIEN TREN DA

4.4 %

.0 %

2.0 %

Total

Count

45

55

100

% within MUC DO MUN TRUNG CA

45.0 %

55.0 %

100.0 %

% within VI KHUAN P.ACNES HIEN DIEN TREN DA

100.0 %

100.0 %

100.0 %

Value

df

Asymp. Sig. (2- sided)

Pearson Chi-Square

2.734a

3

.435

Likelihood Ratio

3.483

3

.323

Linear-by-Linear Association

.760

1

.383

N of Valid Cases

100

VI KHUAN P.ACNES HIEN DIEN TREN DA

Total

CO

KHON G

BIEU HIEN LAM SANG

TRUNG CA DO

Count

8

13

21

% within BIEU HIEN LAM SANG

38.1 %

61.9 %

100.0 %

% within VI KHUAN P.ACNES HIEN DIEN TREN DA

17.8 %

23.6 %

21.0 %

MUN MU VA TRUNG CA DO

Count

16

16

32

% within BIEU HIEN LAM SANG

50.0 %

50.0 %

100.0 %

% within VI KHUAN P.ACNES HIEN DIEN TREN DA

35.6 %

29.1 %

32.0 %

SAN VIEM

Count

6

9

15

% within BIEU HIEN LAM SANG

40.0 %

60.0 %

100.0 %

% within VI KHUAN P.ACNES HIEN DIEN TREN DA

13.3 %

16.4 %

15.0 %

DO DA , GIAN MAO MACH

Count

3

1

4

% within BIEU HIEN LAM SANG

75.0 %

25.0 %

100.0 %

% within VI KHUAN P.ACNES HIEN DIEN TREN DA

6.7 %

1.8 %

4.0 %

TRUNG CA THONG THUONG

Count

10

10

20

% within BIEU HIEN LAM SANG

50.0 %

50.0 %

100.0 %

% within VI KHUAN P.ACNES HIEN DIEN TREN DA

22.2 %

18.2 %

20.0 %

KHAC

Count

2

6

8

% within BIEU HIEN LAM SANG

25.0 %

75.0 %

100.0 %

% within VI KHUAN P.ACNES HIEN DIEN TREN DA

4.4 %

10.9 %

8.0 %

Total

Count

45

55

100

% within BIEU HIEN LAM SANG

45.0 %

55.0 %

100.0 %

% within VI KHUAN P.ACNES HIEN DIEN TREN DA

100.0

%

100.0

%

100.0 %

Value

df

Asymp. Sig. (2- sided)

Pearson Chi-Square

3.829a

5

.574

Likelihood Ratio

3.944

5

.558

Linear-by-Linear Association

.001

1

.971

N of Valid Cases

100