Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32216852›Full record

SynthesisInfection control and hospital epidemiology2020

A systematic review of the effectiveness of cohorting to reduce transmission of healthcare-associated

Cybele L Abad, Anna K Barker, Nasia Safdar

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Infection control and hospital epidemiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.5field-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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Clinical microbiology reviews · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Outbreak of Candida parapsilosis fungemia in an intensive care unit during a COVID surge: an epidemic within a pandemic.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2023
    Observational
  10. Strategies to preventInfection control and hospital epidemiology · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Cybele L AbadDepartment of Medicine, Section of Infectious Diseases, University of the Philippines, Manila-Philippine General Hospital, Manila, Philippines.ORCID 0000-0002-5183-8239
Anna K BarkerDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States.
Nasia SafdarDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, United States.
Philippine General Hospital · PHUniversity of Michigan · USUniversity of Wisconsin System · US

Funding

INTEGRATED TRAINING FOR PHYSICIAN-SCIENTISTST32GM008692 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI BURKARD, MARK E · 1998 to 2020
$10.3M
NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM008692
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCohorting of patients and staff is a control strategy often used to prevent the spread of infection in healthcare institutions. However, a comprehensive evaluation of cohorting as a prevention approach is lacking.

methodsWe performed a systematic review of studies that used cohorting as part of an infection control strategy to reduce hospital-acquired infections. We included studies published between 1966 and November 30, 2019, on adult populations hospitalized in acute-care hospitals.

resultsIn total, 87 studies met inclusion criteria. Study types were quasi-experimental "before and after" (n = 35), retrospective (n = 49), and prospective (n = 3). Case-control analysis was performed in 7 studies. Cohorting was performed with other infection control strategies in the setting of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA, n = 22), Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI, n = 6), vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE, n = 17), carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae infections (CRE, n = 22), A. baumannii (n = 15), and other gram-negative infections (n = 5). Cohorting was performed either simultaneously (56 of 87, 64.4%) or in phases (31 of 87, 35.6%) to help contain transmission. In 60 studies, both patients and staff were cohorted. Most studies (77 of 87, 88.5%) showed a decline in infection or colonization rates after a multifaceted approach that included cohorting as part of the intervention bundle. Hand hygiene compliance improved in approximately half of the studies (8 of 15) during the respective intervention.

conclusionCohorting of staff, patients, or both is a frequently used and reasonable component of an enhanced infection control strategy. However, determining the effectiveness of cohorting as a strategy to reduce transmission of MDRO and C. difficile infections is difficult, particularly in endemic situations.

Indexed as

Cross InfectionClostridioides difficileClostridium InfectionsDelivery of Health CareDrug Resistance, Multiple, BacterialEnterococcusGram-Negative Bacterial InfectionsHumansInfection ControlMethicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureusProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesStaphylococcal Infections

Identifiers

PMID32216852
PMCPMC8561649
OpenAlexW3013469866

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.