ArticleInfection prevention in practice2024
Is there an association between colonisation of vancomycin resistant
Article in Infection prevention in practice, 2024. 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.
- A validated prediction model for intestinal vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus colonization in critically ill patients with sepsis: insights into risk stratification and clinical impact.BMC infectious diseases · 2026Article
- A Risk-Based Isolation Strategy for MDR-Endemic Facilities with Limited Resources.Infectious disease reports · 2026Review
- MRSA: the enduring foe.Infection prevention in practice · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To determine if colonisation with drug resistant organisms is associated with worse outcomes in patients who subsequently develop sepsis. Methods: Retrospective study of patients with sepsis employing logistic regression and linear regression to determine the independent association of colonisation with adverse outcomes. Results: Mortality was higher in patients colonized with VRE [501 of 1937 (26%) v. 1052 of 5624 (19%) non-VRE colonised patients, difference 7% (95% confidence interval (5,9%), p<0.001] and MRSA [168 of 708 (24%) v 1342 of 6804 (20%) non-MRSA colonised patients, difference 4% (1,7%), p = 0.014]. CDiff colonisation was not associated with increased mortality [153 of 757 (21%) v 762 of 7432 (18%), difference 3% (0,6%), p=0.052]. After multivariable logistic regression, VRE colonisation remained associated with increased hospital mortality [odds ratio = 1.273, 95% confidence interval (1.099, 1.475), p = 0.001]. VRE colonisation was also associated with subsequent receipt of mechanical ventilation [odds ratio = 1.179, 95% confidence interval (1.043, 1.334), p = 0.009] and with receipt of renal replacement therapy (RRT) [OR = 1.36 (1.11, 1.66), p = 0.003]. Conclusions: We found that VRE colonisation, but not MRSA or C. diff colonisation, was associated with increased hospital mortality in septic patients.
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.