SynthesisDeutsches Arzteblatt international2016
Infection Risk in Sterile Operative Procedures.
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.
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.
- Review
- Single-session versus two-session placement of chest port and gastrostomy tube in patients with head and neck cancer: Is there any difference in the device-related early infection rates?Acta radiologica open · 2021Article
- Article
- The Impacts of Deep Surgical Site Infections on Readmissions, Length of Stay, and Costs: A Matched Case-Control Study Conducted in an Academic Hospital in the Netherlands.Infection and drug resistance · 2020Article
- Microbial Load in Septic and Aseptic Procedure Rooms.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2017Observational
- In Reply.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2016Article
- Maintenance of Sterility: A Base of Aseptic Procedures.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2016Article
- Progressively Reduce the Number of Infections.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.