ArticleInfection prevention in practice2026
Containing a PER-1-producing
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. 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Healthcare-associated infections in intensive care units (ICUs) are associated with reservoirs such as sinks and drainage systems that sustain biofilms and disseminate Gram-negative bacteria. Between July 2021 and November 2022, an increase in PER-1-producing Aim: The objective was to describe the clinical epidemiology, confirm the environmental source and assess the impact of control measures. Methods: An outbreak investigation was conducted. Cases were ICU patients with at least one PaePER-positive sample; all other ICU patients were considered exposed. Data collection included clinical and laboratory surveillance, observation of healthcare processes and targeted environmental sampling of seven sinks. Isolates were identified by Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption/Ionization Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS); antimicrobial susceptibility was assessed using VITEK2 (bioMérieux), E-test and disk diffusion; extended-spectrum β-lactamase production was evaluated by double-disk synergy and Findings: Among 1221 exposed patients, 31 were affected (attack rate: 2.8%): 25 infections and six colonisation episodes. Eighty-three clinical isolates were recovered, mainly from respiratory and blood samples. Isolates showed high resistance to ceftazidime, cefepime, ceftazidime/avibactam, ceftolozane/tazobactam and amikacin, with preserved susceptibility to carbapenems and cefiderocol. PaePER was recovered from four of seven sinks. PFGE confirmed a single ST309 clone. Conclusion: Sinks and drainage systems acted as the source of a PaePER outbreak. Targeted interventions rapidly interrupted transmission.
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.