ArticleInfection prevention in practice2023
Determining the impact of professional body recommendations on the screening of acquired carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales in England.
Article in Infection prevention in practice, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The rise and global spread of IMP carbapenemases (1996-2023): a genomic epidemiology study.Nature communications · 2025Article
- The rise and global spread of IMP carbapenemases (1996-2023): a genomic epidemiology study.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- The importance of monitoring a new antibiotic: ceftazidime/avibactam usage and resistance experience from England, 2016 to 2020.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Acquired carbapenemase-producing Gram-negative bacteria are an increasing public health concern globally and have been mandatory to report in England since October 2020. However, in light of the COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, the Royal College of Pathologists (RCPath) released new guidance "for reducing the need for screening of CRE (carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales) […] in low-risk areas", without defining "low risk". Methods: To assess the impact of the RCPath recommendations on screening of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE), an online Select Survey was sent to all NHS acute hospitals in England. The initial survey distribution was between March and April 2021 and the survey was relaunched between November 2021 and March 2022. Results: In total, 54 hospitals completed the survey, representing 39.1% of 138 eligible Trusts. All hospitals had a CPE screening policy in place, and the majority of these reflect UKHSA's Framework of actions to contain CPE. Of the 23 hospitals who reported a reduction in CPE screening, only three (13.0%) indicated that this was due to the RCPath recommendations, with 21 (91.3%) indicating that there had been a natural reduction in the number of patients admitted to the Trust who would have previously been screened due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusion: For most surveyed hospitals, CPE screening was not reduced due to the RCPath recommendations. However, the results highlighted that there is a large amount of individual variation in CPE screening practices and diagnostic testing between hospitals.
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.