ArticleCritical care (London, England)2025
Optimizing microbiological surveillance during selective digestive decontamination in the intensive care unit: an in silico simulation study.
Article in Critical care (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSelective Digestive Decontamination (SDD) prevents infections and reduces mortality in the intensive care unit (ICU). Microbiological surveillance is considered essential for effective decontamination and detecting antibiotic resistance. However, its optimal frequency is unclear. We compared microbiological yield and costs of different surveillance intervals during SDD.
methodsIn a computational simulation study, using data from a Dutch ICU, three surveillance scenarios were compared: (A) twice-weekly, (B) once-weekly, and (C) no surveillance. The primary outcome was the number of clinically relevant potentially pathogenic microorganisms (PPMs) detected per scenario. Secondary outcomes included detection of colonisation persistence prompting SDD intensification and surveillance costs.
resultsWe included 8,499 ICU admissions, 52,553 clinical and 75,567 SDD cultures. Scenario A yielded 911 (95% CI 905-917) PPMs per 1,000 days, of which 90 (88-94) were clinically relevant: 9 (9-10) multidrug-resistant microorganisms, 68 (66-71) microorganisms resistant to standard therapy, and 13 (12-14) infection-related microorganisms. Scenarios B and C yielded 85 (82-88) and 77 (75-80) relevant PPMs, respectively (94% and 86% compared to scenario A). Scenario A identified 56 (55-58) cases of colonisation persistence per 1,000 days while scenarios B and C detected 43 (42-45) and 12 (11-12), respectively. Total costs of SDD surveillance were €78,774, €55,208, and €31,522 per 1,000 days for scenarios A, B and C.
conclusionCompared to twice-weekly surveillance, once-weekly microbiological surveillance reduces costs by 30% with 6% loss in clinically relevant PPM detections. No surveillance reduces costs by 60% with 14% detection loss.
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.