Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24278304›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

A simulation-based assessment of strategies to control Clostridium difficile transmission and infection.

Michael A Rubin, Makoto Jones, Molly Leecaster, Karim Khader, Willy Ray, Angela Huttner, Benedikt Huttner, Damon Toth, Theodore Sablay, Robert J Borotkanics and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Identifying asymptomatic spreaders of antimicrobial-resistant pathogens in hospital settings.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. ReducingInfection control and hospital epidemiology · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

12 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Michael A RubinDepartment of Internal Medicine, George E. Wahlen Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States of America ; Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States of America.
Makoto Jones
Molly Leecaster
Karim Khader
Willy Ray
Angela Huttner
Benedikt Huttner
Damon Toth
Theodore Sablay
Robert J Borotkanics
Dale N Gerding
Matthew H Samore
George E. Wahlen Department of VA Medical Center · USUniversity of Utah · USUniversity Hospital of Geneva · CHEdward Hines, Jr. VA Hospital · USJohns Hopkins University · US

Funding

PHS HHS CDC 07FED706506
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClostridium difficile is one of the most common and important nosocomial pathogens, causing severe gastrointestinal disease in hospitalized patients. Although "bundled" interventions have been proposed and promoted, optimal control strategies remain unknown.

methodsWe designed an agent-based computer simulation of nosocomial C. difficile transmission and infection, which included components such as: patients and health care workers, and their interactions; room contamination via C. difficile shedding; C. difficile hand carriage and removal via hand hygiene; patient acquisition of C. difficile via contact with contaminated rooms or health care workers; and patient antimicrobial use. We then introduced six interventions, alone and "bundled" together: aggressive C. difficile testing; empiric isolation and treatment of symptomatic patients; improved adherence to hand hygiene and contact precautions; improved use of soap and water for hand hygiene; and improved environmental cleaning. All interventions were tested using values representing base-case, typical intervention, and optimal intervention scenarios.

findingsIn the base-case scenario, C. difficile infection rates ranged from 8-21 cases/10,000 patient-days, with a case detection fraction between 32%-50%. Implementing the "bundle" at typical intervention levels had a large impact on C. difficile acquisition and infection rates, although intensifying the intervention to optimal levels had much less additional impact. Most of the impact came from improved hand hygiene and empiric isolation and treatment of suspected C. difficile cases.

conclusionA "bundled" intervention is likely to reduce nosocomial C. difficile infection rates, even under typical implementation conditions. Real-world implementation of the "bundle" should focus on those components of the intervention that are likely to produce the greatest impact on C. difficile infection rates, such as hand hygiene and empiric isolation and treatment of suspected cases.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationClostridioides difficileEnterocolitis, PseudomembranousHumansInfection ControlModels, Biological

Identifiers

PMID24278304
PMCPMC3836736
OpenAlexW1984526120

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.