ArticleAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE2023
Applying the standardized infection ratio for reporting surgical site infections in Australian healthcare facilities.
Article in Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE, 2023. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Methodological framework for the surveillance of healthcare-associated infections in high-risk infants: the NeoIPC surveillance core module protocol.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2026Article
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: We explored the utility of the standardized infection ratio (SIR) for surgical site infection (SSI) reporting in an Australian jurisdiction. Design: Retrospective chart review. Setting: Statewide SSI surveillance data from 2013 to 2019. Patients: Individuals who had cardiac bypass surgery (CABG), colorectal surgery (COLO), cesarean section (CSEC), hip prosthesis (HPRO), or knee prosthesis (KPRO) procedures. Methods: The SIR was calculated by dividing the number of observed infections by the number of predicted infections as determined using the National Healthcare Safety Network procedure-specific risk models. In line with a minimum precision criterion, an SIR was not calculated if the number of predicted infections was <1. Results: A SIR >0 (≥1 observed SSI, predicted number of SSI ≥1, no missing covariates) could be calculated for a median of 89.3% of reporting quarters for CABG, 75.0% for COLO, 69.0% for CSEC, 0% for HPRO, and 7.1% for KPRO. In total, 80.6% of the reporting quarters, when the SIR was not calculated, were due to no observed infections or predicted infections <1, and 19.4% were due to missing covariates alone. Within hospitals, the median percentage of quarters during which zero infections were observed was 8.9% for CABG, 20.0% for COLO, 25.4% for CSEC, 67.3% for HPRO, and 71.4% for KPRO. Conclusions: Calculating an SIR for SSIs is challenging for hospitals in our regional network, primarily because of low event numbers and many facilities with predicted infections <1. Our SSI reporting will continue to use risk-indexed rates, in tandem with SIR values when predicted number of SSI ≥1.
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.