The DOI matches its Crossref record; 74 of the 74 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 6 of the 32 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Brief Mindfulness Practices for Healthcare Providers - A Systematic Literature Review.
Open accessAbstract
Mindfulness practice, where an individual maintains openness, patience, and acceptance while focusing attention on a situation in a nonjudgmental way, can improve symptoms of anxiety, burnout, and depression. The practice is relevant for health care providers; however, the time commitment is a barrier to practice. For this reason, brief mindfulness interventions (eg, ≤ 4 hours) are being introduced. We systematically reviewed the literature from inception to January 2017 about the effects of brief mindfulness interventions on provider well-being and behavior. Studies that tested a brief mindfulness intervention with hospital providers and measured change in well-being (eg, stress) or behavior (eg, tasks of attention or reduction of clinical or diagnostic errors) were selected for narrative synthesis. Fourteen studies met inclusion criteria; 7 were randomized controlled trials. Nine of 14 studies reported positive changes in levels of stress, anxiety, mindfulness, resiliency, and burnout symptoms. No studies found an effect on provider behavior. Brief mindfulness interventions may be effective in improving provider well-being; however, larger studies are needed to assess an impact on clinical care.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
40 Own result · 15 Own method · 7 Own interpretation · 4 Not checked yet · 3 Partly supported · 2 Couldn’t confirm · 2 Sources not found · 1 Supported so far · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“yet low compliance by HCP continues to be a concern.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [15] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [23] source
- Could not verifycites [28] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (p. 30) describes PRISMA’s aims for reporting systematic reviews, and the explanation on p. 25 discusses how review results should be presented. Neither addresses hand hygiene or compliance among health care personnel. Searches for hand hygiene compliance and handwashing adherence found no relevant passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“However, 1 of the most important and foundational evidence-based practices to reduce HAI is hand hygiene.”
- Also stated in: § How often are health care personnel hands colonized with multidrug- resistant organisms? A systematic review and meta-analysis · p. 1 · plain
“Thus, HCP hand hygiene is an important step in breaking the transmission chain for development of HAIs, an area extensively researched.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [10] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [15] source
- Could not verifycites [22] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction and Discussion address physician distress and resilience training, not hand hygiene or prevention of health care-associated infections. Searches for hand hygiene, handwashing, infection control, and health care-associated infections found no passage addressing the claim; page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [23] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [24] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [25] source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § How often are health care personnel hands colonized with multidrug- resistant organisms? A systematic review and meta-analysis · p. 1 · plain
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“with the latter generally considered the most sensitive sampling method for MRSA. 101”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [101] Landers TF, Dent A, Schmidt AE, Binder C, Ari ~ no-Blasco S. Nitrile versus latex for glove juice sampling. PloS One 2014;9:e110686. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-6553(1831031-9/sbref0098) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page not provided) says swabbing recovers fewer Staphylococcus spp. than glove juice sampling, supporting a narrower comparison. It does not specifically address MRSA or say glove juice is generally the most sensitive method among all sampling methods. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Nurse-to-patient ratios have been associated with higher rates of health care -associated infection. 103-105”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [103] Cimiotti JP, Aiken LH, Sloane DM, Wu ES. Nurse staf fi ng, burnout, and health careassociated infection. Am J Infect Control 2012;40:486-90. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-6553(1831031-9/sbref0100) source
The Results report that each additional patient assigned to a nurse was associated with higher urinary tract and surgical site infection rates. The Discussion likewise states that hospitals where nurses cared for more patients had higher infection rates; it notes that burnout appeared to account for much of the association. Page numbers are not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Not matchedcites [104] Penoyer DA. Nurse staf fi ng and patient outcomes in critical care: a concise review. Crit Care Med 2010;38:1521-8. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-6553(1831031-9/sbref0101)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [105] Hugonnet S, Chevrolet JC, Pittet D. The effect of workload on infection risk in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 2007;35:76-81. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-6553(1831031-9/sbref0102) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sample collection methods used were comparable for MRSA isolation (4%-7%) except for agar direct contact (1.55%).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Pooled prevalence for MRSA, P aeruginosa , A baumannii , and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus were 4.26%, 4.59%, 6.18%, and 9.03%, respectively.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Substantial heterogeneity in rates of pathogen isolation were observed across studies (I 2 = 81%-95%).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Pooled prevalence for MRSA, P aeruginosa , A baumannii , and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus were 4.26%, 4.59%, 6.18%, and 9.03%, respectively.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Pooled prevalence for MRSA, P aeruginosa , A baumannii , and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus were 4.26%, 4.59%, 6.18%, and 9.03%, respectively.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subgroup analysis of MRSA revealed the highest HCP hand contamination rates in North America (8.28%).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 20
- It may state two separate claims as one. 31
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“As recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration, 2 authors (A.M. and A.G.) independently assessed risk of bias in the included studies.”
- Also stated in: § Data extraction and quality assessment · p. 2 · plain
“For randomized controlled trials, the Cochrane Collaboration tool 29 was used to determine risk of bias, with studies achieving low-risk scores in all 6 domains considered high quality.”
- Also stated in: § Data extraction and quality assessment · p. 2 · plain
“For observational studies, the Newcastle-Ottawa scale 30 that utilizes a star system to assess the quality of study in 3 domains (selection of study groups, comparability of groups, and ascertainment of outcome) was used.”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [29] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Risk of bias section states that two authors independently assessed all included studies, supporting the independent-assessment part of the claim. It says they used seven EPOC criteria for RCTs; it does not support the claim that they used the Newcastle–Ottawa scale for observational studies. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not matchedcites [30]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Data extraction and quality assessment · p. 2 · plain
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The global epidemiology of MRSA has been extensively studied and varies considerably by continent. 46,97-100”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [46]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [97] Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy. MRSA infection rates by country. Available from: http://www.cddep.org/tool/mrsa\_infection\_rates\_country# sthash.bzbuW4ur.Fz8kLVt2.dpbs. Accessed July 27, 2017.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [98] Martin-Loeches I, Diaz E, Valles J. Risks for multidrug-resistant pathogens in the ICU. Curr Opin Crit Care 2014;20:516-24. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-6553(1831031-9/sbref0096) source
- Not matchedcites [99] O ' Neil J. Antimicrobial resistance: tackling a crisis for the health and wealth of nations. Available from: https://amr-review.org/sites/default/ fi les/AMR%20Review %20Paper%20-%20Tackling%20a%20crisis%20for%20the%20health%20and%20 wealth%20of%20nations\_1.pdf. Accessed July 25, 2017.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites [100] Dickmann P, Keeping S, Doring N, Schmidt AE, Binder C, Ari ~ no-Blasco S, et al. Communicating the risk of MRSA: the role of clinical practice, regulation, and other policies in fi ve European countries. Front Public Health 2017;5:44. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0196-6553(1831031-9/sbref0097) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (page not provided) says MRSA prevalence varies across Europe, generally increasing from north to south. That supports geographic variation, but the paper does not establish variation between continents or describe global epidemiology. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Within these studies, the number of HCP hand samples reported ranged from 13-762, 63,75 with results from 6,840 samples reported in total.”
plainn = 6,840- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Twenty (33.9%) of the studies were performed after sampling HCP hands on general wards, 38,42-44,47,48,51,55,56,61,67,71,73,74,77,78, 85,86,89,92 20 (33.9%) in an ICU setting”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · p. 3 · plain
“19 (32.2%) in mixed inpatient settings, 37,40,41,49, 50,57,62,64-66,68,72,79-81,84,90,93,94 and 5 (8.5%) in nursing facilities. 39,53,54,63,88”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · p. 3 · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only 4 of 59 studies sampled for C difficile , with 2 of 4 fi nding no growth.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Regarding HCP activities performed at time of sampling, 28 (47.5%) studies were collected samples during direct patient care, 37,39,40,44,52-54,57,58,60,62-64,69,70,75,77-79,81-83,85,87,89,90, 92,94 26 (44.1%) were unspeci fi ed”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · p. 3 · plain
“and 5 (8.5%) were captured after speci fi c activities (ie, entering the ward or exiting a patient ' s room). 43,65,67,91,95”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · p. 3 · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of the 59 included studies, 42 (71.2%) tested for MRSA, 17 (28.8%) for P aeruginosa , 14 (23.7%) for A baumannii , 8 (13.6%) for VRE, and 4 (6.8%) for C difficile .”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Forty-seven (79.7%) of the included studies used a cross-sectional design, 37-83 7 (11.9%) used pre-post designs, 84-90 3 (5.1%) were randomized controlled trials, 91-93 and 2 (3.4%) used mixed designs (eg, nonrandomized single arm, nonrandomized control). 94,95”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Twenty-three (39%) of the studies were conducted in Asia, 37,38,43,48,50,52,55,57,60,61,66,67,71,73-76,78,80,81,84,92,94 18 (30.5%) in North America”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · p. 2 · plain
“13 (22%) in Europe, 41,46,47,56,59,65,69,72,77,79,82,85,89 2 (3.4%) in South America, 62,68 2 (3.4%) in Africa, 49,58 and 1 (1.7%) in Australia. 83”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · p. 2 · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“swab was used in 7 (11.9%), 38,47,49,65,73,75,86 and subungual scraping was used in 1 (1.7%). 61 One study did not specify a collection method. 93”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A total of 6,335 articles were retrieved by our electronic search, of which 57 met inclusion criteria. Two additional studies provided by content experts were identi fi ed, leading to a total of 59 articles in the systematic review (Fig 1).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Seventeen (28.8%) studies tested for P aeruginosa on HCP hands, with a total of 2,477 samples collected. A pooled prevalence of 4.59% (95% CI, 1.54-8.89) was observed for this pathogen across these studies”
plainn = 2,477- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the 42 studies included in this review, the highest rates of MRSA were found among those conducted in North America (8.28%), followed by Asia (4.23%), and Europe (2.47%).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, 5 of the 10 ICU studies reported recovery rates of 0%, of which 3 46,71,77 used the agar direct method.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Agar direct contact had the lowest observed prevalence rate (1.55%), with 4 studies demonstrating 0% prevalence. 46,63,71,77”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When grouping by continent, North America showed the highest pooled prevalence of 8.28% (95% CI, 3.54-14.52), followed by Asia (3.96%; 95% CI, 2.08-6.31), and Europe (2.54%; 95% CI, 1.04-4.53) (Fig 3).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Two of these studies reported a 0% prevalence. 66,75”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subgroup analysis was limited to care setting comparing the ICU vs the general ward plus mixed inpatient group, which showed statistically similar rates of P aeruginosa carriage at 5.67% (CI, 0.11-16.75) and 3.93% (CI, 0.92-8.47) on HCP hands, respectively.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When comparing the ICU to the general ward plus mixed inpatient group, MRSA prevalence differed but was not signi fi cant (2.20% [95% CI, 0.34-5.12] vs 5.14% [95% CI, 3.40-7.17]).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fourteen (23.7%) studies reported culturing for A baumannii , with a total of 2,154 samples collected. Across 14 studies, the pooled prevalence of A baumannii was 6.18% (95% CI, 3.05-10.17)”
plainn = 2,154- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“with 31 cross-sectional studies showing a pooled prevalence of 3.25% (95% CI, 2.12-4.57) vs 7 non -cross-sectional studies (eg, pre-post, randomized control trial), with a prevalence of 12.49% (95% CI, 5.27-21.98).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Four (6.8%) studies reported culturing for the presence of the bacterium C difficile (not spores), with a total of 235 samples collected 53,56,90,93 in multiple care settings.”
plainn = 235- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Eight (13.6%) studies screened for VRE, with a total of 590 samples collected. This yielded a pooled prevalence of 9.03% (95% CI, 0.7423.37)”
plainn = 590- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Two of 4 studies reported a 0% prevalence 53,56 , whereas 2 others reported a prevalence of 10.7% 93 and 2.4%. 90”
plainn = 235- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. 36”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [36]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Inter-rater agreement for study eligibility was 0.95.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The funder of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The corresponding author had full access to all of the data in the study and had fi nal responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Hands of health care personnel (HCP) can transmit multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs), resulting in infections.”
- Also stated in: § How often are health care personnel hands colonized with multidrug- resistant organisms? A systematic review and meta-analysis · p. 1 · plain
“For hospitalized patients, health care personnel (HCP) are a vector for MDROs as their hands frequently contact contaminated medical devices and environmental surfaces.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [12] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [13] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [14] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [15] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [16] source
- Not matchedcites [17]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [18] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [19] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [20] source
- Not matchedcites [21]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § How often are health care personnel hands colonized with multidrug- resistant organisms? A systematic review and meta-analysis · p. 1 · plain
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because no studies included comparability measures, this was removed from the assessment of risk of bias for all studies.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two authors (A.M. and R.S.) independently determined study eligibility. Any differences in opinion regarding inclusion were adjudicated by a third author (V.C.).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (number CRD42017068296).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two authors (A.G. and R.S.) used a standardized template to extract data independently and in duplicate.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“given an overall higher prevalence of MRSA among patients in the United States compared to most other countries. 97”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [97] Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy. MRSA infection rates by country. Available from: http://www.cddep.org/tool/mrsa\_infection\_rates\_country# sthash.bzbuW4ur.Fz8kLVt2.dpbs. Accessed July 27, 2017.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Cohen k coef fi cient for adjudication of study bias, used to measure inter-rater agreement, was 0.90.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“to our knowledge, this is the fi rst comprehensive systematic review and meta-analyses of MDROprevalence on HCP hands.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Third, we acknowledge that although many studies inferred samples were collected during direct patient care activities, often the circumstances at the time of collection were not explicitly reported, nor was the timing of the last hand hygiene or antiseptic solution used, or the difference in local endemic levels of MDRO, leading to potential variability between studies in the transient bacterial”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The rates of HCP contamination appear to vary not only by continent, but are also in fl uenced by patient contamination, culture methods, and study design.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fifty-seven (96.7%) studies were determined to be a low risk for bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa or Cochrane tool, whereas 2 (3.4%) were considered high risk (Table 1).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whereas our systematic review was robust, only 5 studies were identi fi ed pertaining to MDROs in nursing facilities, thus limiting our understanding of prevalence rates in this group.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our study included a thorough search of the literature by a reference librarian using robust methodology”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“This is in keeping with the findings of a systematic review of brief mindfulness practices for health care providers, which found that these practices increased mindfulness and reduced stress and anxiety (Gilmartin et al., 2017).”
From Emergency department nurses' experiences of a mindfulness training intervention: A phenomenological exploration (2023) · cites this paper as Gilmartin et al., 2017
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Several reviews of EBS interventions for healthcare staff have focused only on mindfulness-based interventions [33, 133–135].”
From Interventions to address empathy-based stress in mental health workers: A scoping review and research agenda (2024) · cites this paper as [133]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“Although personality traits are relatively stable through time they are not cast in stone and can be enhanced, as research has shown, through specific interventions (for reviews and metanalyses see Galante et al., 2018; Gilmartin et al., 2017; Jayawardene et al., 2017; McConville et al., 2017; Quaglia et al., 2016; Spinelli et al., 2018).”
From Specific mindfulness traits protect against negative effects of trait anxiety on medical student wellbeing during high-pressure periods (2021) · cites this paper as Gilmartin et al., 2017
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ (A) MRSA · p. 5
“followed by Asia (3.96%; 95% CI, 2.08-6.31), and Europe (2.54%; 95% CI, 1.04-4.53)”
§ CONCLUSIONS · p. 9
“followed by Asia (4.23%), and Europe (2.47%)”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“with 31 cross-sectional studies showing a pooled prevalence of 3.25% (95% CI, 2.12-4.57) vs 7 non -cross-sectional studies”
Reported 42 · recomputed 38
Citations
Cites
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 · Cited by 28,164
(2011) · Cited by 14,317
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00136 · Cited by 10,349
Downs, S. H., & Black, N. (1998) · Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech.52.6.377 · Cited by 8,252
(2008) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 7,477
Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes
Ivers, N., Jamtvedt, G., Flottorp, S., Young, J. M., Odgaard-Jensen, J., French, S. D., O'Brien, M. A., Johansen, M., Grimshaw, J., & Oxman, A. D. (2012) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000259.pub3 · Cited by 5,485
Kabat-Zinn, J. (1982) · General Hospital Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/0163-8343(82)90026-3 · Cited by 4,255
Health Care–Associated Infections
Zimlichman, E., Henderson, D., Tamir, O., Franz, C., Song, P., Yamin, C. K., Keohane, C. A., Denham, C. R., & Bates, D. W. (2013) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.9763 · Cited by 1,927
Forsetlund, L., Bjørndal, A., Rashidian, A., Jamtvedt, G., O'Brien, M. A., Wolf, F. M., Davis, D., Odgaard-Jensen, J., & Oxman, A. D. (2009) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003030.pub2 · Cited by 1,849
Mindfulness-based stress reduction for health care professionals: results from a randomized trial
Shapiro, S. L., Astin, J. A., Bishop, S. R., & Cordova, M. (2005) · International Journal of Stress Management · doi:10.1037/1072-5245.12.2.164 · Cited by 1,323
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Psychological interventions to foster resilience in healthcare professionals
Kunzler, A. M., Helmreich, I., Chmitorz, A., König, J., Binder, H., Wessa, M., & Lieb, K. (2020) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd012527.pub2 · Cited by 390
Conversano, C., Ciacchini, R., Orrù, G., Di Giuseppe, M., Gemignani, A., & Poli, A. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01683 · Cited by 243
Zhang, X.-J., Song, Y., Jiang, T., Ding, N., & Shi, T.-Y. (2020) · Medicine · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000020992 · Cited by 233
“Other interventions such as yoga,([16,32,33]) massage,([15]) mindfulness([16,18,20,31,37,39,42]) and meditation([16,19,35,40]) have been reported.”
Spinelli, C., Wisener, M., & Khoury, B. (2019) · Journal of Psychosomatic Research · doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2019.03.003 · Cited by 170
Psychological interventions to foster resilience in healthcare students
Kunzler, A. M., Helmreich, I., König, J., Chmitorz, A., Wessa, M., Binder, H., & Lieb, K. (2020) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd013684 · Cited by 177
Metadata
- Authors
- Gilmartin, H., Goyal, A., Hamati, M. C., Mann, J., Saint, S., & Chopra, V.
- Affiliations
- Denver VA Medical Center (US)
- Michigan Medicine (US)
- Michigan State University (US)
- VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System (US)
- Corresponding author
- Gilmartin, Heather
- Venue
- The American Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-10
- Volume
- 130
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1219.e1-1219.e17
- ISSN
- 0002-9343 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2724327893
- Semantic Scholar
- 80aaf1230a29cdd2ac3685e1755e4f3579d86454
- Cited by
- 211
- References
- 43
- Citations by year
- 2026: 20 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 8
- FWCI
- 2.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- The American Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
- Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Stress and Burnout Research
- Keywords
- brief mindfulness intervention, healthcare workers, provider well-being, burnout, anxiety, stress, resilience, medical errors, attention, hospital staff
- MeSH terms
- Anxiety, Burnout, Professional, Depression, Health Personnel, Humans, Mindfulness
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-30, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-30 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
