ArticleInfection2013
Sources of systematic errors in the epidemiology of vancomycin-resistant enterococci.
Article in Infection, 2013. 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.
- Introduction and spread of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium (VREfm) at a German tertiary care medical center from 2004 until 2010: a retrospective whole-genome sequencing (WGS) study of the molecular epidemiology of VREfm.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2024Article
- In-hospital costs of community-acquired colonization with multidrug-resistant organisms at a German teaching hospital.BMC health services research · 2018Article
- Control of the spread of vancomycin-resistant enterococci in hospitals: epidemiology and clinical relevance.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2013Review
- [Multiresistant gram-negative bacteria. A bacterial challenge of the twenty-first century].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe rates of vancomycin resistance among enterococci (VRE) have been increasing worldwide. However, reports on vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE) are easily biased and meta-data reporting is insufficient. Additionally, no standardised protocol for VRE testing currently exists. The aim of our study was to investigate, for the first time, the impact of introduced bias in VRE reports. We also analysed the sensitivity of our in-house screening test for VRE, namely, a broth-enriched PCR assay.
methodsRetrospective review of microbial and clinical data on all patients tested for VRE who had been admitted to a large university hospital over a 5-year period and an analysis of the possible impact of introduced bias. Our screening test was also evaluated using clinical isolates.
resultsA total of 27,636 screening tests were carried out over the 5-year study period, of which 2,459 were VRE-positive. The number of screening tests increased dramatically over the study period, with 1,053 tests carried out on 435 patients in 2006 and 9,444 tests carried out on 5,104 patients in 2010. VRE prevalence was 8.1 % over the 5-year period. The introduction of measurement bias caused a clear overestimation of absolute VRE numbers. The sensitivity of our screening test was 95.5 % with a positive predictive value of 39 %.
conclusionBiased reports lead to the implementation of high-cost containment measures that may be both unnecessary and detrimental to the patient. Our data show that systematic errors in VRE reports caused a clear overestimation of absolute VRE numbers, thereby indicating an outbreak situation even though the actual prevalence of VRE was decreasing. We suggest that reports of VRE must take measurement and analysis biases into account, otherwise any conclusion drawn is unreliable and inconclusive.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23386219What 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.