Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26901358›Full record

SynthesisInfluenza and other respiratory viruses2016

Risk of nosocomial respiratory syncytial virus infection and effectiveness of control measures to prevent transmission events: a systematic review.

Clare E French, Bruce C McKenzie, Caroline Coope, Subhadra Rajanaidu, Karthik Paranthaman, Richard Pebody, Jonathan S Nguyen-Van-Tam, Noso-RSV Study Group, Julian P T Higgins, Charles R Beck

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Influenza and other respiratory viruses, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
8.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

60 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 120 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Going Viral-RSV as the Neglected Adult Respiratory Virus.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Review
  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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Clare E FrenchSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Bruce C McKenzieUniversity of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Caroline CoopeSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Subhadra RajanaiduUniversity of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Karthik ParanthamanPublic Health England, London, UK.
Richard PebodyPublic Health England, London, UK.
Jonathan S Nguyen-Van-TamUniversity of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Noso-RSV Study Group
Julian P T HigginsSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Charles R BeckSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Public Health England · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GBUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) causes a significant public health burden, and outbreaks among vulnerable patients in hospital settings are of particular concern. We reviewed published and unpublished literature from hospital settings to assess: (i) nosocomial RSV transmission risk (attack rate) during outbreaks, (ii) effectiveness of infection control measures. We searched the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, together with key websites, journals and grey literature, to end of 2012. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool or Newcastle-Ottawa scale. A narrative synthesis was conducted. Forty studies were included (19 addressing research question one, 21 addressing question two). RSV transmission risk varied by hospital setting; 6-56% (median: 28·5%) in neonatal/paediatric settings (n = 14), 6-12% (median: 7%) in adult haematology and transplant units (n = 3), and 30-32% in other adult settings (n = 2). For question two, most studies (n = 13) employed multi-component interventions (e.g. cohort nursing, personal protective equipment (PPE), isolation), and these were largely reported to be effective in reducing nosocomial transmission. Four studies examined staff PPE; eye protection appeared more effective than gowns and masks. One study reported on RSV prophylaxis for patients (RSV-Ig/palivizumab); there was no statistical evidence of effectiveness although the sample size was small. Overall, risk of bias for included studies tended to be high. We conclude that RSV transmission risk varies widely during hospital outbreaks. Although multi-component control strategies appear broadly successful, further research is required to disaggregate the effectiveness of individual components including the potential role of palivizumab prophylaxis.

Indexed as

AnimalsCross InfectionHumansInfection ControlRespiratory Syncytial Virus, HumanRespiratory Syncytial Virus InfectionsInfection controlnosocomial infectionspalivizumabpersonal protective equipmentrespiratory syncytial virus

Identifiers

PMID26901358
PMCPMC4910170
OpenAlexW2278684516

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.