ArticleAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2024
Implications of deduplication on the detection rates of multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) in various specimens: insights from the hospital infection surveillance program.
Article in Antimicrobial resistance and infection control, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association of a Hospital-Wide Integrated Stewardship Intervention with Hospital-Acquired Multidrug-Resistant Organism Infection Incidence Density: A Large-Scale Interrupted Time-Series Study.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Mapping antimicrobial resistance and healthcare-associated infections indicators for actionable benchmarking: a cross-network overview in a data-driven era.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2025Review
- Tools and challenges in the use of routine clinical data for antimicrobial resistance surveillance.npj antimicrobials and resistance · 2025Review
- Innovative Solutions for Multidrug-Resistant Organisms' Infections in Intensive Care Unit: A Joint Efficacy Evaluation of Multidisciplinary Team and SHEL (Software, Hardware, Environment, Liveware) Model.Current therapeutic research, clinical and experimental · 2025Article
- Molecular Epidemiology and Genetic Characterization of Carbapenem-ResistantInfection and drug resistance · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCurrently, different guidelines recommend using different methods to determine whether deduplication is necessary when determining the detection rates of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs). However, few studies have investigated the effect of deduplication on MDRO monitoring data. In this study, we aimed to investigate the influence of deduplication on the detection rates of MDROs in different specimens to assess its impact on infection surveillance outcomes.
methodsSamples were collected from hospitalized patients admitted between January 2022 and December 2022; four types of specimens were collected from key monitored MDROs, including sputum samples, urine samples, blood samples, and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) samples. In this study, we compared and analysed the detection rates of carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKP), carbapenem-resistant Escherichia coli (CRECO), carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB), carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (CRPA), and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) under two conditions: with and without deduplication.
resultsWhen all specimens were included, the detection rates of CRKP, CRAB, CRPA, and MRSA without deduplication (33.52%, 77.24%, 44.56%, and 56.58%, respectively) were significantly greater than those with deduplication (24.78%, 66.25%, 36.24%, and 50.83%, respectively) (all P < 0.05). The detection rates in sputum samples were significantly different between samples without duplication (28.39%, 76.19%, 46.95%, and 70.43%) and those with deduplication (19.99%, 63.00%, 38.05%, and 64.50%) (all P < 0.05). When deduplication was not performed, the rate of detection of CRKP in urine samples reached 30.05%, surpassing the rate observed with deduplication (21.56%) (P < 0.05). In BALF specimens, the detection rates of CRKP and CRPA without deduplication (39.78% and 53.23%, respectively) were greater than those with deduplication (31.62% and 42.20%, respectively) (P < 0.05). In blood samples, deduplication did not have a significant impact on the detection rates of MDROs.
conclusionDeduplication had a significant effect on the detection rates of MDROs in sputum, urine, and BALF samples. Based on these data, we call for the Infection Prevention and Control Organization to align its analysis rules with those of the Bacterial Resistance Surveillance Organization when monitoring MDRO detection rates.
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.