Observational studyDeutsches Arzteblatt international2017
Microbial Load in Septic and Aseptic Procedure Rooms.
Observational study in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness of architectural separation of septic and aseptic operating theatres for improving process quality and patient outcomes: a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- [Balancing act between infection protection by hygiene measures and sustainability in surgery].Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Evaluation of the practice of reprocessing ORs in German hospitals from an infection prevention and control perspective.Infection · 2024Article
- Separate Septic and Aseptic Operating Areas.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2017Article
- In Reply.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2017Article
- The Separation of Septic and Aseptic Surgical Areas is Obsolete.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHighly effective measures to prevent surgical wound infections have been established over the last two decades. We studied whether the strict separation of septic and aseptic procedure rooms is still necessary.
methodsIn an exploratory, prospective observational study, the microbial concentration in an operating room without a room ventilating system (RVS) was analyzed during 16 septic and 14 aseptic operations with the aid of an air sampler (50 cm and 1 m from the operative field) and sedimentation plates (1 m from the operative field, and contact culture on the walls). The means and standard deviations of the microbial loads were compared with the aid of GEE models (generalized estimation equations).
resultsIn the comparison of septic and aseptic operations, no relevant differences were found with respect to the overall microbial concentration in the room air (401.7 ± 176.3 versus 388.2 ± 178.3 CFU/m
conclusionThese data do not suggest that septic and aseptic procedure rooms need to be separated. In interpreting the findings, one should recall that the study was not planned as an equivalence or non-inferiority study. Wherever patient safety is concerned, high-level safety concepts should only be demoted to lower levels if new and convincing evidence becomes available.
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.