Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41853692›Full record

ArticleInfection prevention in practice2026

Managing

S Y Shing, H Chen, E S-K Ma

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Infection prevention in practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

S Y ShingInfection Control Branch, Centre for Health Protection, Department of Health, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
H ChenInfection Control Branch, Centre for Health Protection, Department of Health, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
E S-K MaInfection Control Branch, Centre for Health Protection, Department of Health, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Methods: A multi-disciplinary response team conducted epidemiological investigations and implemented control measures to contain the outbreak. Contact tracing identified six additional colonized residents, apart from the index case and five residents who had persistent colonization from the previous outbreak. Infection control recommendations included proper placement of affected residents and frequent environmental disinfection, along with decolonization therapy arranged for all affected residents. Results: The present outbreak involved seven residents, all with medical conditions that affect their ability to maintain personal hygiene. None developed clinical infections. Five residents were cleared with Discussion and Conclusion: Current knowledge regarding clearance criteria, effective decolonization regime, and the role of air dispersal in transmission is limited, meriting further research. Effective communication among health authorities, hospitals, and RCHE staff is vital for prompt outbreak response, while continuous support enhances compliance and builds rapport with RCHEs, ensuring better outbreak management outcomes.

Indexed as

Candida aurisDisease outbreaksInfection control

Identifiers

PMID41853692
PMCPMC12992098

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.