Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27159141›Full record

SynthesisDeutsches Arzteblatt international2016

Infection Risk in Sterile Operative Procedures.

Evelina Tacconelli, Niklas F Müller, Sebastian Lemmen, Nico T Mutters, Stefan Hagel, Elisabeth Meyer

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Microbial Load in Septic and Aseptic Procedure Rooms.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2017
    Observational
  6. In Reply.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2016
    Article
  7. Maintenance of Sterility: A Base of Aseptic Procedures.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2016
    Article
  8. Progressively Reduce the Number of Infections.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2016
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Evelina TacconelliGerman Center for Infection Research (DZIF), Department of Internal Medicine I, Medical University Hospital Tübingen, Division of Gastroenterology and Rheumatology, Department of. Internal Medicine, Neurology and Dermatology, University Hospital of Leipzig, Central Department of Hospital Hygiene and Infectiology, Aachen University Hospital, Heidelberg University Hospital, Department of Infectious Diseases, Medical Microbiology and Hygiene, Center for Infectious Diseases and Infection Control, Jena University Hospital, Institute of Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin.
Niklas F Müller
Sebastian Lemmen
Nico T Mutters
Stefan Hagel
Elisabeth Meyer

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe main objective of hospital hygiene and infection prevention is to protect patients from preventable nosocomial infections. It was recently stated that the proper goal should be for zero infection rates in sterile surgical procedures. In this article, we attempt to determine whether this demand is supported by the available literature.

methodsWe systematically searched the Medline and EMBASE databases for studies published in the last 10 years on the efficacy of infection control measures and carried out a meta-analysis according to the PRISMA tool. We used the following search terms: "aseptic surgery," "intervention," "surgical site infection," "nosocomial infection," "intervention," and "prevention."

results2277 articles were retrieved, of which 204 were acquired in full text and analyzed. The quantitative analysis included 7 prospective cohort studies on the reduction of nosocomial infection rates after aseptic surgery. The measures used included training sessions, antibiotic prophylaxis, and operative-site disinfection and cleaning techniques. These interventions succeeded in reducing postoperative wound infections (relative risk (RR] 0.99 [0.98; 1.00]). Subgroup analyses on antibiotic prophylaxis (RR 0.99 [0.98; 1.01]) and noncontrolled trials (RR 0.97 [0.92; 1.02]) revealed small, insignificant effects.

conclusionA multimodal approach with the participation of specialists from various disciplines can further reduce the rate of postoperative infection. A reduction to zero is not realistic and is not supported by available evidence.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChildChild, PreschoolComorbidityCross InfectionEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleGermanyHumansHygieneInfantInfant, NewbornInfection Control

Identifiers

PMID27159141
PMCPMC4985522

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.