Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28989442›Full record

ArticleJournal of infection prevention2015

Outbreak column 18: The undervalued work of outbreak: prevention, preparedness, detection and management.

Evonne T Curran, Catherine E Dalziel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. IPS spotlight.Journal of infection prevention · 2015
    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.

Evonne T CurranConsultant Nurse Infection Control, Health Protection Scotland, UK.
Catherine E DalzielHealthcare Scientist, Health Protection Scotland, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There are oft-quoted studies which advise that between 1% and 10% of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) present as healthcare-associated outbreaks (HAOs). Examination of these studies showed they lacked validity due to a low sensitivity to detect HAO, and because they pre-date both advanced healthcare systems and the emergence of recent nosocomial pathogen challenges. The accepted inference: that as there are so few HAOs the focus of surveillance programmes should be on endemic and not epidemic infections (outbreaks), is therefore called into question. Current estimates of HAI burden are derived from Point Prevalence Surveys (PPS) which are neither designed to nor are capable of detecting HAOs. We considered the extensive Infection Prevention and Control Team (IPCT) work to prevent and prepare for perennial and novel HAOs and suggest that at present this endeavour is largely unseen, underestimated and undervalued. Any HAI burden estimate needs to comprise a more complete HAI summary than PPS data. This can only be done with a more inclusive surveillance system that has a wider focus than just prevalent infections. There is a real risk of redirection of the IPCT resource from outbreak prevention and preparedness work towards HAI that are counted: such a change could only further increase HAO risks.

Identifiers

PMID28989442
PMCPMC5074162

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.