Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23967398›Full record

ArticleGMS hygiene and infection control2013

One-day point prevalence of emerging bacterial pathogens in a nationwide sample of 62 German hospitals in 2012 and comparison with the results of the one-day point prevalence of 2010.

Christian Wegner, Nils-Olaf Hübner, Sabine Gleich, Ulrike Thalmaier, Colin M Krüger, Axel Kramer

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GMS hygiene and infection control, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Adult vaccination.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2015
    Review
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Christian WegnerInstitute of Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald, Ernst-Moritz-Arndt University, Greifswald, Germany.
Nils-Olaf Hübner
Sabine Gleich
Ulrike Thalmaier
Colin M Krüger
Axel Kramer

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAntibiotic resistance of bacterial pathogens is an emerging problem worldwide. To combat multidrug resistant organisms (MRDOs) networks of care providers have been established in all states in Germany. The HICARE-network, a project to combat MRDOs, founded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, has published data from 2010 of a voluntary, German-wide, multicenter point-prevalence survey in 2011 conducted in collaboration with the German Society of Hospital Hygiene. The aim of the present survey was the re-evaluation of the situation in 2012.

methodThe survey was conducted as a voluntary, anonymous, point-prevalence in May 2012 using routine data of microbiological diagnostics of the hospitals. As in the former survey of 2010 it was differentiated between primary, secondary and tertiary care hospitals and only data from intensive care units, surgical and medical wards were collected. Based on the survey form used in 2010, an updated version was used including more pathogens and corrected issues observed in the former survey. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) (total as well as separated in hospital-acquired (HA), community-acquired (CA) and lifestock-associated (LA) MRSA), vancomycin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (VRSA/GRSA), vancomycin resistant Enterococcus faecalis resp. Enterococcus faecium (VR-E. faecalis resp. VR-E. faecium), extended-spectrum-beta-lactamase-building (ESBL) E. coli (ESBL-EC) and Klebsiella pneumoniae (ESBL-KP), multiresistant Acinetobacter spp. (MAB), multiresistant Pseudomonas spp. (MRP), carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) as well as Clostridium difficile (CD) infections and severe infections requiring ICU-treatment were included in the survey along with additional data on screening strategy, the equipment with infection control staff and possible confounders.

resultsOut of 1,550 hospitals asked to participate, 62 returned data (4%). Data from 56 hospitals including primary (26), secondary (20) and tertiary (10) care hospitals were analyzable (3.6%). The most frequently reported organisms were MRSA 1.53% [CI95: 1.32-1.75], followed by CDAD 1.30% [CI95: 1.11-1.50], ESBL-EC 0.97% [CI95: 0.80-1.14], and ESBL-KP 0.27% [CI95: 0.18-0.36], regardless of the level of care. Prevalence of MRDOs depended on the level of care and on the type of ward, as expected. Overall prevalence was highest on intensive care wards, and prevalences were remarkably high on medical wards compared to surgical wards. All tertiary care providers employed their own infection control nurse, while only ~70% of the secondary and primary care hospitals did. Surprisingly, in two of the ten participating tertiary care providers neither an internal nor an external infection control doctor was available. DISCUSSION: With more than 13,000 patients in 56 hospitals distributed all over Germany, the survey included more than three times as many patients as the first survey and therefore not only adds valuable information about the epidemiology of emerging nosocomial pathogens, but also helps to raise awareness of the problem of antibacterial resistance in Germany. The prevalences reported seem to be comparable to the results of the former survey and of other surveys published. Some hospitals reported to have no infection control personnel available at all. This statement is in line with another survey published in this issue.

Indexed as

CDADESBLHICARE-networkinfection control staffMRDOsMRSApoint prevalencetype of screeningVRE

Identifiers

PMID23967398
PMCPMC3746607
OpenAlexW1602226441

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.