ArticleJournal of infection prevention2015
Quantifying patient bacterial exposure risk from reusable phlebotomy tourniquets in a New Zealand secondary level hospital.
Article in Journal of infection prevention, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reusable tourniquets for blood sampling as a source of multi-resistant organisms- a systematic review.Frontiers in public health · 2023Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis study aimed to assess for the presence of multi-drug resistant organisms (MDROs) on tourniquets and quantify the number of bacteria to which patients might be exposed with each blood collection episode.
methodsTourniquets were randomly sampled in a 246-bed, secondary level, New Zealand hospital, which is currently non-endemic for MDROs. A 6-cm length of each tourniquet sampled was applied to the surface of an agar plate and the colony forming units (CFUs) were enumerated. All colonies were then screened for MDROs using standard methods. CFU counts per linear centimetre were multiplied by a range of patient arm circumference measurements. Comparison was also made between non-disinfected tourniquets left on the wards and phlebotomy service tourniquets after daily decontamination with a proprietary disinfectant.
resultsThe median exposure risk from non-disinfected tourniquets was 173 CFUs per collect (95% CI, 104-861). None of the general ward tourniquets grew any MDROs but four out of five dedicated, single-patient reusable isolation room tourniquets grew MRSA. Disinfected tourniquets had few if any CFUs and CFU counts were significantly lower than non-disinfected tourniquets (
conclusionThe quantitative risk from reusable tourniquets appears low in the setting of MDRO non-endemicity, with the application of standard infection control practices.
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.