Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28474179›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2017

Evaluation of sampling locations in pregnant women and newborns for the detection of colonisation with antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

M Zamfir, A C Adler, S Kolb, A Dammeyer, L Nasri, L Schomacher, B Karlin, M Franitza, S Hörmansdorfer, C Tuschak and 3 more

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. 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

13 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

M ZamfirBavarian Health and Food Safety Authority, Pfarrstraße 3, 80538, Munich, Germany. mihai.zamfir@lgl.bayern.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7440-492X
A C AdlerBavarian Health and Food Safety Authority, Pfarrstraße 3, 80538, Munich, Germany.
S KolbBavarian Health and Food Safety Authority, Pfarrstraße 3, 80538, Munich, Germany.
A DammeyerBavarian Health and Food Safety Authority, Pfarrstraße 3, 80538, Munich, Germany.
L NasriKlinikum Augsburg, Women's Clinic, Augsburg, Germany.
L SchomacherBavarian Health and Food Safety Authority, Pfarrstraße 3, 80538, Munich, Germany.
B KarlinRotkreuzklinikum München, Women's Clinic, Munich, Germany.
M FranitzaKlinikum Augsburg, Women's Clinic, Augsburg, Germany.
S HörmansdorferBavarian Health and Food Safety Authority, Pfarrstraße 3, 80538, Munich, Germany.
C TuschakBavarian Health and Food Safety Authority, Pfarrstraße 3, 80538, Munich, Germany.
G ValenzaBavarian Health and Food Safety Authority, Pfarrstraße 3, 80538, Munich, Germany.
U OchmannInstitute and Outpatient Clinic of Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, Clinic of the University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
C HerrBavarian Health and Food Safety Authority, Pfarrstraße 3, 80538, Munich, Germany.
LMU Klinikum · DEUniversity Hospital Augsburg · DELudwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DERotkreuzklinikum München · DEZimmer Biomet (Netherlands) · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Up to now, little has been known about the prevalence and clinical relevance of colonisation of asymptomatic pregnant women with methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA), methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) or extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Escherichia coli. In this two-centre cross-sectional study, we evaluated the performance and importance of screening at different times and different locations for colonisation in pregnant women and newborns. Between October 2013 and December 2015, four samples were collected from pregnant women, two from newborns at birth and three from 3-day-old newborns. Samples were screened on culturing media and were confirmed with molecular methods. MSSA was used as a surrogate for MRSA, as the two share most microbiologic characteristics and colonisation patterns. Of 763 pregnant women, 14.5% (111) were colonised with MSSA, 0.4% (3) with MRSA and 2.6% (20) with ESBL-producing E. coli. Of 658 newborns, 0.9% (10) were colonised with MSSA at birth and 13.1% (70) at 3 days old, 0.5% (3) were colonised with MRSA and 2.6% (17) with ESBL-producing E. coli. Nasal sampling identified 91.0% of MSSA-colonised pregnant women and 60.0% of newborns. In newborns, nasal and umbilical sampling at 3 days after birth discovered 84.0% of colonised cases. For ESBL-producing E. coli, the perianal region was positive in all colonised pregnant women and in 88.2% of colonised newborns. Combining nasal and perianal swabs is optimal when screening for antibiotic-resistant bacteria in pregnant women. Nasal, perianal and umbilical sample collection from 3-day-old newborns significantly increased the sensitivity compared to screening immediately after birth.

Indexed as

Drug Resistance, BacterialAdolescentAdultBacterial InfectionsCarrier StateCross-Sectional StudiesEscherichia coliFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornMalePregnancyPregnancy Complications, InfectiousSpecimen HandlingStaphylococcus aureusSurveys and QuestionnairesAmpCNasal AreaNasal SamplePregnant WomanSheep Blood Agar

Identifiers

PMID28474179
OpenAlexW2610486704

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.