ArticleBMJ open2021
Active surveillance for carbapenemase-producing
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Management of intra-abdominal infections: recommendations by the Italian council for the optimization of antimicrobial use.World journal of emergency surgery : WJES · 2024Review
- Prevalence of Colonization with Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria: Results of a 5-Year Active Surveillance in Patients Attending a Teaching Hospital.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Exploring the Antibiotic Resistance Profile of ClinicalAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Four Types of ST11 Novel Mutations From Increasing Carbapenem-ResistantFrontiers in microbiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe distribution of carbapenemase-producing
settingThe study was performed in a tertiary-care hospital located in Northern Italy.
participantsTwo groups were considered: 22 939 'at-risk' patients submitted to active surveillance for CPKP detection in rectal swabs/stools and 1094 CPKP-infected patients in which CPKP was detected in samples other than rectal swabs.
resultsCPKP-positive rectal swabs were detected in 5% (1150/22 939). A CPKP infection was revealed in 3.1% (719/22 939) of patients: 582 with CPKP-positive rectal swab (50.6% of the 1150 CPKP-positive rectal swabs) and 137 with CPKP-negative rectal swab. The 49.4% (568/1150) of the patients with CPKP-positive rectal swab were carriers. The overall frequency of CPKP-positive patients (carriers and infected) was almost constant from 2012 to 2016 (excluding the 2015 peak) and then increased in 2017-2018.
conclusionsThe high prevalence of carriers without evidence of infection, representing a potential reservoir of CPKP, suggests to maintain the guard about this problem, emphasising the importance of active surveillance for timely detection and separation of carriers, activation of contact precautions and antibiotic treatment guidance on suspicion of infection.
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.