Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37351725›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2023

Contact tracing for vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium (VRE): evaluation of the Dutch policy of quintuple screening cultures.

Linda J Wammes, Anne F Voor In 't Holt, Corné H W Klaassen, Margreet C Vos, Nelianne J Verkaik, Juliëtte A Severin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Investigating pathways of vancomycin-resistantmedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  2. Impact of stopping contact precautions onAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Linda J WammesDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6660-9738
Anne F Voor In 't HoltDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3560-1725
Corné H W KlaassenDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3439-0903
Margreet C VosDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0496-7038
Nelianne J VerkaikDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2351-2669
Juliëtte A SeverinDepartment of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. j.severin@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5222-3017

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Detection of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium (VRE) is hampered by low sensitivity of rectal swab cultures. This study aimed to define the number of screening cultures needed to increase sensitivity to detect VRE transmission, and to determine time from presumed exposure to detectable colonization. In a tertiary care setting, we retrospectively analyzed data from 9 VRE outbreaks. As a proxy or estimation for time to detectable colonization, the time between first positive culture of the presumed index patient and that of their contacts was determined. Only 64% of secondary cases were positive in the first out of five cultures. By using the first three out of five rectal swabs, 89% (95%CI: 78-95%) of all secondary cases would have been identified. The median number of days between the positive culture of the index patient and the first positive culture of secondary cases was 9 days. Eleven percent of secondary cases would have been missed if only three rectal samples would have been obtained. Furthermore, our results show that one or more rectal swabs taken around day 9 after presumed exposure should at least be included in the screening approach. In our setting, obtaining a fourth and a fifth rectal swab showed a relevant additional value compared to only one to three swabs. Our findings are useful for determining the most effective VRE contact tracing approach to prevent transmission.

Indexed as

Enterococcus faeciumGram-Positive Bacterial InfectionsVancomycin-Resistant EnterococciAnti-Bacterial AgentsContact TracingHumansRetrospective StudiesVancomycinAnti-Bacterial AgentsVancomycinContact tracingEnterococcus faeciumInfection controlOutbreaksPolicyVancomycin resistance

Identifiers

PMID37351725
PMCPMC10345005

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.