ArticleBMC infectious diseases2017
Estimating the impact post randomization changes in staff behavior in infection prevention trials: a mathematical modeling approach.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Moana: Alternate surveillance for COVID-19 in a Unique Population (MASC-UP).Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2024Article
- Examining the impact of ICU population interaction structure on modeled colonization dynamics of Staphylococcus aureus.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- Article
- Estimated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Decolonization in Intensive Care Units Associated With Single-Application Chlorhexidine Gluconate or Mupirocin.JAMA network open · 2021Article
- Assessing the Potential Impact of a Long-Acting SkinDisinfectant in the Prevention of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Transmission.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) of behavior-based interventions are particularly vulnerable to post-randomization changes between study arms. We assess the impact of such a change in a large, multicenter study of universal contact precautions to prevent infection transmission in intensive care units.
methodsWe construct a stochastic mathematical model of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) acquisition in a simulated 18-bed intensive care unit (ICU). Using parameters from a recent study of contact precautions that reported a post-randomization change in contact rates, with fewer visits observed in the treatment arm, we explore the impact of several possible interpretations of this change on MRSA acquisition rates.
resultsScenarios where contact precautions resulted in less patient visitation resulted in a mean decrease in MRSA acquisition rate of 37%, accounting for much of the effect reported in the trial.
conclusionsBehavior changes that impact the contact rate have the potential to drastically alter the results of RCTs in infection control settings. Careful monitoring for these changes, and an assessment of which changes will likely have the greatest impact on the study before the study begins are both recommended.
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.