Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27813699›Full record

ReviewVirulence2017

Screening for carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae: Who, When, and How?

Sandra S Richter, Dror Marchaim

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Virulence, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing 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

54 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial of Enhanced Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacterales Prevention Program in General Medicine Wards, Siriraj Hospital.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2026
    Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Duration of intensive care unit stay as a guide for the timely treatment of Carbapenem-resistantAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Rapid Detection of Carbapenemases Using NG-TestAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Carbapenemase producingInfection prevention in practice · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  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

2 authors.

Sandra S Richtera Department of Laboratory Medicine , Cleveland Clinic , Cleveland , OH , USA.
Dror Marchaimb Division of Infectious Diseases , Assaf Harofeh Medical Center , Zerifin , Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The global spread of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) has been fostered by the lack of preemptive screening of patients in healthcare facilities that could prevent patient-to-patient transmission. Outbreaks of CRE infections have led some institutions to implement rigorous screening programs, although controlled comparative data are frequently lacking. Resource limitations and uncertainty regarding the optimal approach has kept many facilities from enacting more active routine surveillance policies that could reduce the prevalence of CRE. The ideal population to target for screening, the frequency of testing, and the preferred test method are components of surveillance programs that remain open to debate. This review discusses the rationale for different screening policies in use and the performance characteristics of laboratory methods available to detect CRE carriage.

Indexed as

Carbapenem-Resistant EnterobacteriaceaeCarrier StateCross InfectionEnterobacteriaceae InfectionsHumansInfection ControlMass ScreeningCarbapenemase-producing organismscarbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceaecolonizationscreening

Identifiers

PMID27813699
PMCPMC5477693

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.