ArticleRevista Brasileira de terapia intensiva
Comparison between a clinical diagnosis method and the surveillance technique of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention for identification of mechanical ventilator-associated pneumonia.
Article in Revista Brasileira de terapia intensiva. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Unravelling the complexity of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a systematic methodological literature review of diagnostic criteria and definitions used in clinical research.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Systematic review of studies investigating ventilator associated pneumonia diagnostics in intensive care.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Impact of a national collaborative project to improve the care of mechanically ventilated patients.PloS one · 2023Trial
- Determinants of macrosomia among newborns delivered in northwest Ethiopia: a case-control study.The Journal of international medical research · 2022Article
- A comparison of diagnostic algorithms and clinical parameters to diagnose ventilator-associated pneumonia: a prospective observational study.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2021Observational
- Concordance between the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) Surveillance Criteria and Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (CPIS) Criteria for Diagnosis of Ventilator-associated Pneumonia (VAP).Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2021Article
- Outcomes of ventilatory asynchrony in patients with inspiratory effort.Revista Brasileira de terapia intensiva · 2020Article
- Ventilator-associated respiratory infection in a resource-restricted setting: impact and etiology.Journal of intensive care · 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
11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objective>To evaluate the agreement between a new epidemiological surveillance method of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the clinical pulmonary infection score for mechanical ventilator-associated pneumonia detection.
methodsThis was a prospective cohort study that evaluated patients in the intensive care units of two hospitals who were intubated for more than 48 hours between August 2013 and June 2014. Patients were evaluated daily by physical therapist using the clinical pulmonary infection score. A nurse independently applied the new surveillance method proposed by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. The diagnostic agreement between the methods was evaluated. A clinical pulmonary infection score of ≥ 7 indicated a clinical diagnosis of mechanical ventilator-associated pneumonia, and the association of a clinical pulmonary infection score ≥ 7 with an isolated semiquantitative culture consisting of ≥ 104 colony-forming units indicated a definitive diagnosis.
resultsOf the 801 patients admitted to the intensive care units, 198 required mechanical ventilation. Of these, 168 were intubated for more than 48 hours. A total of 18 (10.7%) cases of mechanical ventilation-associated infectious conditions were identified, 14 (8.3%) of which exhibited possible or probable mechanical ventilator-associated pneumonia, which represented 35% (14/38) of mechanical ventilator-associated pneumonia cases. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention method identified cases of mechanical ventilator-associated pneumonia with a sensitivity of 0.37, specificity of 1.0, positive predictive value of 1.0, and negative predictive value of 0.84. The differences resulted in discrepancies in the mechanical ventilator-associated pneumonia incidence density (CDC, 5.2/1000 days of mechanical ventilation; clinical pulmonary infection score ≥ 7, 13.1/1000 days of mechanical ventilation).
conclusionThe Center for Disease Control and Prevention method failed to detect mechanical ventilator-associated pneumonia cases and may not be satisfactory as a surveillance method.
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.