ArticleInfection control and hospital epidemiology2022
Development and evaluation of a structured guide to assess the preventability of hospital-onset bacteremia and fungemia.
Article in Infection control and hospital epidemiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- National automated surveillance of hospital onset bacteraemia and fungaemia using data from the national antimicrobial resistance surveillance system: a retrospective exploratory evaluation, the Netherlands, 2018 to 2023.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2026Article
- Advancing hospital-onset bacteraemia surveillance: a five-year retrospective study following the hospital-wide implementation of an automated surveillance system at a German university hospital.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2026Article
- Preventing bloodstream infections through effective surveillance, AUDIT and FEEDBACK: evaluation of a 20-year hospital program using a TYPE I hybrid design.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2026Article
- Hospital-onset bacteraemia and fungaemia as a novel automated surveillance indicator: results from four European university hospitals, 2018 to 2022.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2025Observational
- Evaluation of hospital-onset bacteraemia and fungaemia in the USA as a potential healthcare quality measure: a cross-sectional study.BMJ quality & safety · 2024Article
- Epidemiology and preventability of hospital-onset bacteremia and fungemia in 2 hospitals in India.Infection control and hospital epidemiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess preventability of hospital-onset bacteremia and fungemia (HOB), we developed and evaluated a structured rating guide accounting for intrinsic patient and extrinsic healthcare-related risks.
designHOB preventability rating guide was compared against a reference standard expert panel.
participantsA 10-member panel of clinical experts was assembled as the standard of preventability assessment, and 2 physician reviewers applied the rating guide for comparison.
methodsThe expert panel independently rated 82 hypothetical HOB scenarios using a 6-point Likert scale collapsed into 3 categories: preventable, uncertain, or not preventable. Consensus was defined as concurrence on the same category among ≥70% experts. Scenarios without consensus were deliberated and followed by a second round of rating.Two reviewers independently applied the rating guide to adjudicate the same 82 scenarios in 2 rounds, with interim revisions. Interrater reliability was evaluated using the κ (kappa) statistic.
resultsExpert panel consensus criteria were met for 52 scenarios (63%) after 2 rounds.After 2 rounds, guide-based rating matched expert panel consensus in 40 of 52 (77%) and 39 of 52 (75%) cases for reviewers 1 and 2, respectively. Agreement rates between the 2 reviewers were 84% overall (κ, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-0.88]) and 87% (κ, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65-0.94) for the 52 scenarios with expert consensus.
conclusionsPreventability ratings of HOB scenarios by 2 reviewers using a rating guide matched expert consensus in most cases with moderately high interreviewer reliability. Although diversity of expert opinions and uncertainty of preventability merit further exploration, this is a step toward standardized assessment of HOB preventability.
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.