ArticleInfection prevention in practice2020
Carbapenemase screening in an Irish tertiary referral hospital: Best practice, or can we do better?
Article in Infection prevention in practice, 2020. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Explainable AI for infection prevention and control: modeling CPE acquisition and patient outcomes in an Irish hospital with transformers.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Screening for carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE)-considering the practical implications of molecular results, the value of culture and deciding criteria for resistance.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2025Article
- Targeted 'knock out' therapy with a combination antimicrobial regimen restores treatment options in the management of extensively drug-resistant carbapenemase-producing organisms.Journal of medical microbiology · 2025Article
- Learning from pragmatic local research.Infection prevention in practice · 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
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCarbapenems are a family of end line antibiotics with increasing levels of resistance that are a cause for concern.
aimTo ascertain whether the CPE screening programme employed in an acute tertiary hospital is fit for purpose.
methodWe outlined the current working algorithm employed using a universal screening programme over a 26-month screening period. Rectal swabs are cultured on arrival. Those with suspicious growth are further investigated using NG-Carba 5 lateral flow tests and Vitek 2.0 sensitivity cards. These practices were compared with NHS guidelines. FINDINGS &
conclusionsIn all, 53 true positives were detected from 45 patients since the screening was implemented in early 2018 (46 OXA-48, 6 KPC, 1 NDM). As the rate of screening increased, the number of positive screens decreased over time. There were a lot of similarities between the HSE guidelines and the published NHS CPE toolkit. It was evident that there is no standard practice being employed across all hospitals. Comparing the MUH to national guidelines it appears to be quicker and more effective with universal screening in place at reducing the potential contacts and identifying carriers. Cost analysis indicates that the need to confirm all positive strains in a reference lab is costly, unnecessary and time consuming. There are adequate confirmatory tests available in-house for routine positive screens. It was concluded that infection prevention and control are key to identifying and controlling possible outbreaks in a hospital setting.
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.