ArticleIrish journal of medical science2017
Colonisation with extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) not detected in a prevalence study.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2017. 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.
- Prevalence of linezolid-resistant organisms among patients admitted to a tertiary hospital for critical care or dialysis.Irish journal of medical science · 2022Article
- Anti-microbial coating innovations to prevent infectious diseases (AMiCI): Cost action ca15114.Bioengineered · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Mid-West of Ireland has higher than average national rates of invasive extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) bloodstream infections and carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE), with increasing numbers of ESBL isolates detected in community-dwelling patients.
aimsTo conduct a point prevalence study in a convenience sample of the Mid-West population with the aim of determining the extent of ESBL colonisation.
methodsUtilising anonymised community stool samples that had completed routine analysis, we conducted a point prevalence study over a 4-week period on all samples that met defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Limited epidemiological data was recorded: (1) age of patient, (2) gender, and (3) sender location. From these stool specimens, rectal swabs were inoculated (eSwab™ 480CE, Copan, Italy), which were subsequently cultured on selective chromogenic agar (Colorex™ ESBL). Culture plates were incubated aerobically at 37 °C for 24 h.
resultsOf 195 samples processed, 58 % (n = 112) were from females. The median patient age was 62.4 years (range 20-94 years). 186 samples (95 %) originated from general practitioner clinics. During the study period, only nine eligible stool samples were received from LTCF (6 public). From 195 Colorex™ ESBL chromogenic agar plates cultured, no ESBL-producing organisms were detected.
conclusionsThis community point prevalence study did not identify ESBL colonisation despite high numbers of patients with invasive ESBL bloodstream infections presenting for admission in our institution. We believe this may be because of our small sample size. Data regarding antimicrobial exposure and other risk factors for ESBL colonisation were also not available. We remain vigilant for ESBL-producing organisms.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27761798What 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.