ArticleInfection control and hospital epidemiology2024
Treated, hospital-onset
Article in Infection control and hospital epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) and non-CAUTI hospital-onset urinary tract infections: Relative burden, cost, outcomes and related hospital-onset bacteremia and fungemia infections.Infection control and hospital epidemiology · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the incidence of a candidate definition of healthcare facility-onset, treated
methodsWe analyzed 9,134,276 admissions from 265 hospitals during 2015-2020. The cHT-CDI events were defined based on the first positive laboratory final identification of CD after day 3 of hospitalization, accompanied by use of a CD drug. The generalized linear model method via negative binomial regression was used to identify predictors. Standardized infection ratios (SIRs) were calculated based on 2 risk-adjusted models: a simple model using descriptive variables and a complex model using descriptive variables and CD testing practices. The performance of each model was compared against cHT-CDI unadjusted rates.
resultsThe median rate of cHT-CDI events per 100 admissions was 0.134 (interquartile range, 0.023-0.243). Hospital variables associated with cHT-CDI included the following: higher community-onset CDI (CO-CDI) prevalence; highest-quartile length of stay; bed size; percentage of male patients; teaching hospitals; increased CD testing intensity; and CD testing prevalence. The complex model demonstrated better model performance and identified the most influential predictors: hospital-onset testing intensity and prevalence, CO-CDI rate, and community-onset testing intensity (negative correlation). Moreover, 78% of the hospitals ranked in the highest quartile based on raw rate shifted to lower percentiles when we applied the SIR from the complex model.
conclusionsHospital descriptors, aggregate patient characteristics, CO-CDI burden, and clinical testing practices significantly influence incidence of cHT-CDI. Benchmarking a cHT-CDI metric is feasible and should include facility and clinical variables.
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.