ArticleBMC infectious diseases2023
ICU infection surveillance can be based on electronic routine data: results of a case study.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2023. 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.
- EFFECT of daily antiseptic bathing with octenidine on ICU-acquired bacteremia and ICU-acquired multidrug-resistant organisms: a multicenter, cluster-randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study.Intensive care medicine · 2024Trial
- 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
- Innovative Techniques for Infection Control and Surveillance in Hospital Settings and Long-Term Care Facilities: A Scoping Review.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Uses of a real-time automatic nosocomial infection surveillance system to support prevention and control of hospital-acquired infections in the ICU.Frontiers in public health · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe surveillance of hospital-acquired infections in Germany is usually conducted via manual chart review; this, however, proves resource intensive and is prone to a certain degree of subjectivity. Documentation based on electronic routine data may present an alternative to manual methods. We compared the data derived via manual chart review to that which was derived from electronic routine data.
methodsData used for the analyses was obtained from five of the University of Leipzig Medical Center's (ULMC) ICUs. Clinical data was collected according to the Protection against Infection Act (IfSG); documentation thereof was carried out in hospital information systems (HIS) as well as in the ICU-KISS module provided by the National Reference Center for the Surveillance of Nosocomial Infections (NRZ). Algorithmically derived data was generated via an algorithm developed in the EFFECT study; ward-movement data was linked with microbiological test results, generating a data set that allows for evaluation as to whether or not an infection was ICU-acquired.
resultsApproximately 75% of MDRO cases and 85% of cases of sepsis/primary bacteremia were classified as ICU-acquired by both manual chart review and EFFECT. Most discrepancies between the manual and algorithmic approaches were due to differentiating definitions regarding the patients' time at risk for acquiring MDRO/bacteremia.
conclusionsThe concordance between manual chart review and algorithmically generated data was considerable. This study shows that hospital infection surveillance based on electronically generated routine data may be a worthwhile and sustainable alternative to manual chart review.
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.