ArticleIrish journal of medical science
Occurrence of Burkholderia cepacia in the hospital environment.
Article in Irish journal of medical science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Physiotherapy for cystic fibrosis in Australia and New Zealand: A clinical practice guideline.Respirology (Carlton, Vic.) · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo determine the prevalence of Burkholderia cepacia from the environment in a regional adult cystic fibrosis (CF) care centre.
methodsTwo hundred and eighty-five environmental samples were taken from inpatient and outpatient environments within the CF centre. Following a non-selective enrichment step, broths were plated onto a selective medium and B. cepacia isolates were confirmed by phenotypic tests and also genotypically by species specific 16S rRNA PCR.
resultsB. cepacia was not detected from commonly shared items of equipment, staff hands, staff uniforms or toilets. In addition, the organism was not detected in toilet bowls, even in the B. cepacia unit. With regard to positive environments for B. cepacia, 4/10 (40%) of the outside surfaces and inner rims of patients' plastic disposable sputum collection containers and 4/17 (23.5%) of air from patients' rooms, following physiotherapy, were positive.
conclusionsAll positive samples originated in the B. cepacia segregation area of the inpatient wards and B. cepacia was not detected in the non-cepacia area of the CF centre. Consequently, these two positive sites should therefore be treated as high risk, where organisms may be potentially transmitted from environment to patient. As there is now evidence to suggest differences in the virulence and hence clinical outcome of certain of the genomovars of this organism, this study may be important in highlighting the areas that patients who are B. cepacia positive should avoid, to minimise the risk of transmission and acquisition of this organism within the CF cepacia population. These results indicate that effective infection control procedures are required in patients' rooms following physiotherapy, for prevention of B. cepacia transmission and to avoid the transmission of different genomovar types within CF patients, who are already colonised with this pathogen.
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.