Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29102989›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Universal or targeted approach to prevent the transmission of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in intensive care units: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Lidia Kardaś-Słoma, Jean-Christophe Lucet, Anne Perozziello, Camille Pelat, Gabriel Birgand, Etienne Ruppé, Pierre-Yves Boëlle, Antoine Andremont, Yazdan Yazdanpanah

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Barrier Precautions in the Era of Multidrug Pathogens.Current treatment options in infectious diseases · 2020
    Review
  10. Review
  11. 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

9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Lidia Kardaś-SłomaIAME, UMR 1137, INSERM, Paris, France.
Jean-Christophe LucetIAME, UMR 1137, INSERM, Paris, France.
Anne PerozzielloIAME, UMR 1137, INSERM, Paris, France.
Camille PelatIAME, UMR 1137, INSERM, Paris, France.
Gabriel BirgandIAME, UMR 1137, INSERM, Paris, France.
Etienne RuppéBacteriology Laboratory, Bichat-Claude Bernard Hospital, AP-HP, Paris, France.
Pierre-Yves BoëllePierre Louis Institute of Epidemiology and Public Health (IPLESPUMRS 1136), INSERM, UPMC University Paris 06, Sorbonne University, Paris, France.
Antoine AndremontBacteriology Laboratory, Bichat-Claude Bernard Hospital, AP-HP, Paris, France.
Yazdan YazdanpanahIAME, UMR 1137, INSERM, Paris, France.
Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris · FRDélégation Paris 7 · FRUniversité Claude Bernard Lyon 1 · FRInserm · FRInstitut Pierre Louis d‘Épidémiologie et de Santé Publique · FRUniversité Paris Cité · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveSeveral control strategies have been used to limit the transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms in hospitals. However, their implementation is expensive and effectiveness of interventions for the control of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-PE) spread is controversial. Here, we aim to assess the cost-effectiveness of hospital-based strategies to prevent ESBL-PE transmission and infections.

designCost-effectiveness analysis based on dynamic, stochastic transmission model over a 1-year time horizon. PATIENTS AND

settingPatients hospitalised in a hypothetical 10-bed intensive care unit (ICU

interventionsBase case scenario compared with (1) universal strategies (eg, improvement of hand hygiene (HH) among healthcare workers, antibiotic stewardship), (2) targeted strategies (eg, screening of patient for ESBL-PE at ICU admission and contact precautions or cohorting of carriers) and (3) mixed strategies (eg, targeted approaches combined with antibiotic stewardship). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Cases of ESBL-PE transmission, infections, cost of intervention, cost of infections, incremental cost per infection avoided.

resultsIn the base case scenario, 15 transmissions and five infections due to ESBL-PE occurred per 100 ICU admissions, representing a mean cost of €94 792. All control strategies improved health outcomes and reduced costs associated with ESBL-PE infections. The overall costs (cost of intervention and infections) were the lowest for HH compliance improvement from 55%/60% before/after contact with a patient to 80%/80%.

conclusionsImproved compliance with HH was the most cost-saving strategy to prevent the transmission of ESBL-PE. Antibiotic stewardship was not cost-effective. However, adding antibiotic restriction strategy to HH or screening and cohorting strategies slightly improved their effectiveness and may be worthy of consideration by decision-makers.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial Agentsbeta-LactamasesCost-Benefit AnalysisCross InfectionEnterobacteriaceaeEnterobacteriaceae InfectionsHand HygieneHumansInfection ControlIntensive Care UnitsModels, TheoreticalSensitivity and SpecificityAnti-Bacterial Agentsbeta-Lactamasescost-effectivenessinfection control

Identifiers

PMID29102989
PMCPMC5722099
OpenAlexW2766910145

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.