ArticleMedical journal, Armed Forces India2014
Emerging organisms in a tertiary healthcare set up.
Article in Medical journal, Armed Forces India, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Outbreak ofMedical journal, Armed Forces India · 2018Article
- Obstetric and Neonatal Outcomes of Pregnant Indian Pilgrims: A three-year experience at the Indian Hajj Medical Mission.Sultan Qaboos University medical journal · 2018Article
- Melioidosis in South Asia (India, Nepal, Pakistan, Bhutan and Afghanistan).Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2018Review
- Device-Associated Healthcare-Associated Infections (DA-HAI) and the caveat of multiresistance in a multidisciplinary intensive care unit.Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2017Article
- Multiresistant Elizabethkingia meningoseptica infections in tertiary care.Medical journal, Armed Forces India · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOne-tenth of all infectious diseases are attributable to emerging organisms. As emerging organisms sporadically affect a relatively small percentage of population they are not studied at large. This study was aimed at studying the characteristics of emerging organisms encountered from various clinical samples in an apex tertiary care multispeciality teaching and research hospital.
methods16,918 positive isolates obtained from 66,323 culture samples processed in the clinical microbiology lab of an apex multispeciality hospital during 2011-2012 were included after a pilot study. Both manual and automated systems were used for identification and antimicrobial susceptibility. The frequency of isolation, sources, referring centers, resistance and susceptibility profiles, phenotypic characteristics and number of reports in PubMed were studied.
resultsOut of 16,918 isolates, 13,498 (79.78%) were Gram negative bacteria, 3254 (19.23%) were Gram positive bacteria and 166 (0.98%) were yeasts. A total of 483 (2.85%, 95% CI 2.6%-3.1%) emerging organisms including 116 (0.69%, 95% CI 0.57%-0.81%) emerging species were identified comprising 54 genera.
conclusionEmerging organisms are likely to evade routine identification or be disregarded as non-contributory. Astute efforts directed at identification of emerging isolates, decisions by clinical microbiologists and treating physicians and containment of infection are required.
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.