ReviewInfection control and hospital epidemiology2013
Defining relatedness in studies of transmission of antimicrobial-resistant organisms: variability in definitions across studies and impact of different approaches on study conclusions.
Review in Infection control and hospital epidemiology, 2013. 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.
- Patient-to-Patient Transmission of Acinetobacter baumannii Gastrointestinal Colonization in the Intensive Care Unit.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveComparison of studies evaluating patient-to-patient transmission of organisms is difficult, given the lack of standardized criteria. We used fluoroquinolone-resistant Escherichia coli (FQREC) as a model to characterize variability in definitions of relatedness across studies and to evaluate the resultant impact on study conclusions.
designNarrative review and cohort study.
methodsThe narrative review compared relatedness criteria across studies of FQREC. Additionally, an existing database was used to compare relatedness of isolates on the basis of molecular criteria alone versus molecular plus clinical criteria with different temporal cutoffs (hospitalization overlap of ≥1 day or allowance for nonoverlap of hospitalization dates of ≤7 days or ≤30 days).
resultsForty-six articles met narrative review inclusion criteria. Sixteen studies exclusively utilized molecular criteria to define relatedness. Thirty studies included molecular and clinical criteria. Of these, 6 included temporal data (ie, time period of isolate identification), 10 included patient location, and 14 included proximity and temporal criteria. For the database analysis, 353 patients were colonized with FQREC. There were 2 main clusters containing 48 and 17 related isolates within 49 pulsed-field gel electrophoresis types. Among the clusters, 18.4% of isolates were related by molecular criteria. Incorporating clinical criteria, fewer isolates were considered related: 5.7% of isolates using 30-day criteria, 3.1% using 7-day criteria, and 1.4% using 1-day overlap.
conclusionsThere is considerable variability in definitions of relatedness of FQREC. Utilizing molecular criteria alone to define relatedness overestimates transmission compared with definitions including clinical criteria. Standard definitions of relatedness in studies of antimicrobial-resistant organisms are needed.
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.