ReviewDer Internist2015
[Prevention of transmission of multidrug-resistant bacteria].
Review in Der Internist, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multidrug-resistant bacteria in a paediatric palliative care inpatient unit: results of a one year surveillance.GMS hygiene and infection control · 2020Article
- [Infectiology in intensive care medicine].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2017Article
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
backgroundThe increase in multidrug-resistant bacteria (MDR) is a worldwide problem. Depending on the type of pathogen there are only a few and less effective treatment options available; therefore, effective infection prevention is of major importance.
objectiveWhich infection prevention and control measures are effective and feasible for the prevention of MDR transmission? MATERIAL AND
methodsDiscussion and critical appraisal of current recommendations and the available literature.
resultsStudies evaluating infection control measures for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, vancomycin-resistant enterococci and multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria differ with respect to the prevalence of MDR, screening methods, number of available personnel and compliance with hand hygiene measures. Many databases result from outbreak investigations and are not comparable with the endemic setting. In addition, the bundle approach makes it impossible to evaluate a single measure alone.
conclusionThe guidelines and recommendations for dealing with colonized and infected patients are of low evidential value and often difficult to implement in the clinical practice. The single most important measure to avoid transmission is still disinfection of the hands. Single room isolation and contact precautions are often recommended but the relevance is unclear; however, the disadvantages of patients being isolated are well studied and of major concern. Screening measures have to be adapted to the local situation. Full body washing of all patients in at-risk areas with chlorhexidine appears to be an attractive and effective alternative to screening and isolation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26452577What 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.