ArticleAnaesthesiology intensive therapy2024
Prevalence of multidrug-resistant organisms in intensive care unit patients and rate of subsequent bacteraemia: a 5-year study.
Article in Anaesthesiology intensive therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Impact of Disinfecting Non-Sterile Disposable Gloves on the Level of Microbiological Contamination in Clinical Practice.Microorganisms · 2026Review
- The Role of Routine Surveillance Cultures in Optimising Sepsis Management in High-Risk Patient Groups.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Pathogen characteristics and pre-index clinical factors associated with multidrug-resistant organism infections in intensive care unit patients.Frontiers in public health · 2026Observational
- Decoding pulmonary infections through targeted next-generation sequencing: comprehensive pathogen profiling in 999 clinical cases.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMultidrug-resistant organism (MRO) bacteraemia is associated with significant mortality. A limited number of studies have examined the relationship between MRO colonisation and subsequent bacteraemia in critically ill patients. MATERIAL AND
methodsAll patients with a positive surveillance swab result and a positive blood culture result for MROs admitted to the Westmead intensive care unit (ICU) between 1 January 2014 and 31 March 2019 had their results matched with ICU data extracted from the ICU database and analysed for the risk of bacteraemia among swab positive patients.
resultsThere were 3,878 (2,388 males, 1,490 females) assessable admissions during the period. The median APACHE II (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation) score was 17. A total of 9,681 swab results were collected from 3,878 patients. Of the 3,878 patients, 818 were positive for MROs, and 3,060 were negative. Thirty-two swab positive patients (3.9%) tested positive for MROs in the blood culture, and 16 (0.52%) in the swab negative group had MROs in their blood cultures. This difference was statistically significant (adjusted [adj] OR 6.33; 95% CI: 3.40-11.76). The swab positive group was also associated with a significantly higher positive blood culture with orga-nisms other than MROs than the swab negatives (11.1% and 6.2%, respectively, adj OR 1.37; 95% CI: 1.04-1.82). The overall mortality was higher in swab positive compared to swab negative patients (20.7% vs. 13.1%, P < 0.001). The overall prevalence of MRO colonisation was 21% in our cohort.
conclusionsThe risk of MRO bacteraemia was higher among patients with a positive surveillance swab result for the organism compared to those with a negative swab, but this was not associated with higher mortality in that group.
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.