ArticleAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2022
Cross-site collaboration on infection prevention and control research-room for improvement? A 7-year comparative study in five European countries.
Article in Antimicrobial resistance and infection control, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe spread of SARS-CoV-2, multidrug-resistant organisms and other healthcare-associated pathogens represents supra-regional challenges for infection prevention and control (IPC) specialists in every European country. To tackle these problems, cross-site research collaboration of IPC specialists is very important. This study assesses the extent and quality of national research collaborations of IPC departments of university hospitals located in Austria, England, France, Germany, and the Netherlands, identifies network gaps, and provides potential solutions.
methodsJoint publications of IPC heads of all university hospitals of the included countries between 1st of June 2013 until 31st of May 2020 were collected by Pubmed/Medline search. Further, two factors, the journal impact factor and the type/position of authorship, were used to calculate the Scientific Collaboration Impact (SCI) for all included sites; nationwide network analysis was performed.
resultsIn five European countries, 95 sites and 125 responsible leaders for IPC who had been in charge during the study period were identified. Some countries such as Austria have only limited national research cooperations, while the Netherlands has established a gapless network. Most effective collaborating university site of each country were Lille with an SCI of 1146, Rotterdam (408), Berlin (268), Sussex (204), and Vienna/Innsbruck (18). DISCUSSION: The present study indicates major differences and room for improvement in IPC research collaborations within each country and underlines the potential and importance of collaborating in IPC.
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.