ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2004
Two years of a fungal aerobiocontamination survey in a Florentine haematology ward.
Article in European journal of epidemiology, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mold contamination in a controlled hospital environment: a 3-year surveillance in southern Italy.BMC infectious diseases · 2014Article
- Sinonasal risk factors for the development of invasive fungal sinusitis in hematological patients: Are they important?Allergy & rhinology (Providence, R.I.) · 2011Article
- A study of air microbe levels in different areas of a hospital.Current microbiology · 2009Article
- Factors involved in the aerosol transmission of infection and control of ventilation in healthcare premises.The Journal of hospital infection · 2006Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The control of microbial air contamination in hospital wards has assumed great importance particularly for those hospital infections where an airborne infection route is hypothesised, such as aspergillosis. Invasive aspergillosis represents one of the most serious complications in immunocompromised patients. For some authors there is a direct association between this pathology and the concentrations of Aspergillus conidia in the air; in addition, reports of aspergillosis concurring during building construction have been frequent. In this study, two haematology wards were monitored for about 2 years in order to make both a qualitative and quantitative evaluation of fungal burden in the air, also in relation to major construction and demolition work taking place in the same building. Air samples were taken from the hospital rooms of neutropenic patients, in the corridors of their ward and outside the building. Total fungal concentration resulted higher outside (mean 572 Colony Forming Units/m3 of air), lower in the corridors (147 CFU/m3) and even lower in the rooms (50 CFU/m3). In all the samples we found the development of at least one fungal colony. Cladosporium was the most frequently isolated genus (57%), in contrast to Aspergillus spp. (2%). The average concentration of Cladosporium spp. was 24 CFU/m3 in the rooms, 78 CFU/m3 in the corridors and 318 CFU/m3 outside. The average concentration of Aspergillus spp. was 1.2 CFU/m3 in the rooms, 3.5 CFU/m3 in the corridors, 5.6 CFU/m3 outside. Our observations show low concentrations of Aspergillus fumigatus and A. flavus in all the environments examined and particularly in the rooms (0.09 and 0.10 CFU/m3 respectively); this observation could explain the absence of cases of invasive aspergillosis during the period of air monitoring in the two haematology wards.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.