ArticleInfection and drug resistance2014
Does antimicrobial use density at the ward level influence monthly central line-associated bloodstream infection rates?
Article in Infection and drug resistance, 2014. 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.
- Temporal trends in microbial detection during the COVID-19 pandemic: Analysis of the Japan surveillance for Infection Prevention and Healthcare Epidemiology (J-SIPHE) database.Journal of infection and chemotherapy : official journal of the Japan Society of Chemotherapy · 2023Article
- Drug-resistance dynamics of Staphylococcus aureus between 2008 and 2014 at a tertiary teaching hospital, Jiangxi Province, China.BMC infectious diseases · 2017Article
- Antibiotic-Related Adverse Drug Reactions at a Tertiary Care Hospital in South Korea.BioMed research international · 2017Article
- Variation of Circulating Inflammatory Mediators in Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli Bloodstream Infection.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2016Article
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
The aim of this study was to elucidate risk factors, including ward antimicrobial use density (AUD), for central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in a 430-bed community hospital using central venous lines with closed-hub systems. We calculated AUD as (total dose)/(defined daily dose × patient days) ×1,000 for a total of 20 drugs, nine wards, and 24 months. Into each line day data, we inputed AUD and device utilization ratios, number of central line days, and CLABSI. The ratio of susceptible strains in isolates were subjected to correlation analysis with AUD. Of a total of 9,997 line days over 24 months, CLABSI was present in 33 cases (3.3 ‰), 14 (42.4%) of which were on surgical wards out of nine wards. Of a total of 43 strains isolated, eight (18.6%) were methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA); none of the MRSA-positive patients had received cefotiam before the onset of infection. Receiver-operating characteristic analysis showed that central line day 7 had the highest accuracy. Logistic regression analysis showed the central line day showed an odds ratio of 5.511 with a 95% confidence interval of 1.936-15.690 as did AUD of cefotiam showing an odds ratio of 0.220 with 95% confidence interval of 0.00527-0.922 (P=0.038). Susceptible strains ratio and AUD showed a negative correlation (R (2)=0.1897). Thus, CLABSI could be prevented by making the number of central line days as short as possible. The preventative role of AUD remains to be investigated.
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.