ArticleInfection2012
Respiratory viruses in patients and employees in an intensive care unit.
Article in Infection, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sources of viral respiratory infections in Canadian acute care hospital healthcare personnel.The Journal of hospital infection · 2020Article
- Point-of-care diagnostics for respiratory viral infections.Expert review of molecular diagnostics · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the frequency of respiratory viruses in a nonselected population of intensive care unit patients and employees and to investigate the clinical as well as the epidemiological association with virological findings.
methodsBetween 12 January and 5 March 2009, nasopharyngeal swabs were collected from 55 intensive care unit (ICU) patients and 41 medical personnel at 16 different time-points and tested for 11 respiratory viruses by single real-time PCR using TaqMan or MGB probes.
resultsAmong the 55 ICU patients tested, there were 30 virus-positive respiratory specimens (30/173, 17.3%) and 23 patients who tested positive at least once for respiratory viruses (23/55, 41.8%). Only the time from admission to the ICU was associated with the probability of testing positive, with the probability of testing positive decreasing with increasing length of stay (P < 0.001). Of the 418 respiratory specimens collected from the healthcare personnel, 27 (6.5%) tested positive. Seventeen employees tested positive at least once for respiratory viruses (17/41, 41.5%). Among the employees, calendar time (P = 0.03) and having sick contacts at home (P = 0.006) were significantly associated with swab positivity. Among the study population, patients had a significantly higher probability of having a positive swab result than employees. The distribution of viruses differed between the two groups.
conclusionsOur results suggest that when hygiene precautions are adopted, the possibility of transmitting selected respiratory viruses between patients and personnel is limited. They also point to a greater importance of the community over the hospital environment for acquisition of viral respiratory infections by ICU patients and employees.
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.