Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 356

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Interventions to reduce colonisation and transmission of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria in intensive care units: an interrupted time series study and cluster randomised trial

Open access
Derde, Lennie P G, Cooper, Ben S, Goossens, Herman, Malhotra-Kumar, Surbhi, Willems, Rob J L, Gniadkowski, Marek, Hryniewicz, Waleria, Empel, Joanna, Dautzenberg, Mirjam J D, Annane, Djillali, Aragão, Irene, Chalfine, Annie, Dumpis, Uga, Esteves, Francisco, Giamarellou, Helen, Muzlovic, Igor, Nardi, Giuseppe, Petrikkos, George L, Tomic, Viktorija, Martí, Antonio Torres, Stammet, Pascal, Brun-Buisson, Christian, Bonten, Marc J M·2014·The Lancet Infectious Diseases

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Intensive care units (ICUs) are high-risk areas for transmission of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria, but no controlled study has tested the effect of rapid screening and isolation of carriers on transmission in settings with best-standard precautions. We assessed interventions to reduce colonisation and transmission of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria in European ICUs. METHODS: We did this study in three phases at 13 ICUs. After a 6 month baseline period (phase 1), we did an interrupted time series study of universal chlorhexidine body-washing combined with hand hygiene improvement for 6 months (phase 2), followed by a 12-15 month cluster randomised trial (phase 3). ICUs were randomly assigned by computer generated randomisation schedule to either conventional screening (chromogenic screening for meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus [MRSA] and vancomycin-resistant enterococci [VRE]) or rapid screening (PCR testing for MRSA and VRE and chromogenic screening for highly resistant Enterobacteriaceae [HRE]); with contact precautions for identified carriers. The primary outcome was acquisition of resistant bacteria per 100 patient-days at risk, for which we calculated step changes and changes in trends after the introduction of each intervention. We assessed acquisition by microbiological surveillance and analysed it with a multilevel Poisson segmented regression model. We compared screening groups with a likelihood ratio test that combined step changes and changes to trend. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00976638. FINDINGS: Seven ICUs were assigned to rapid screening and six to conventional screening. Mean hand hygiene compliance improved from 52% in phase 1 to 69% in phase 2, and 77% in phase 3. Median proportions of patients receiving chlorhexidine body-washing increased from 0% to 100% at the start of phase 2. For trends in acquisition of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria, weekly incidence rate ratio (IRR) was 0·976 (0·954-0·999) for phase 2 and 1·015 (0·998-1·032) for phase 3. For step changes, weekly IRR was 0·955 (0·676-1·348) for phase 2 and 0·634 (0·349-1·153) for phase 3. The decrease in trend in phase 2 was largely caused by changes in acquisition of MRSA (weekly IRR 0·925, 95% CI 0·890-0·962). Acquisition was lower in the conventional screening group than in the rapid screening group, but did not differ significantly (p=0·06). INTERPRETATION: Improved hand hygiene plus unit-wide chlorhexidine body-washing reduced acquisition of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria, particularly MRSA. In the context of a sustained high level of compliance to hand hygiene and chlorhexidine bathings, screening and isolation of carriers do not reduce acquisition rates of multidrug-resistant bacteria, whether or not screening is done with rapid testing or conventional testing. FUNDING: European Commission.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s1473-3099(13)70295-0

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 356

Metadata

Authors
Derde, L. P. G., Cooper, B. S., Goossens, H., Malhotra-Kumar, S., Willems, R. J. L., Gniadkowski, M., Hryniewicz, W., Empel, J., Dautzenberg, M. J. D., Annane, D., Aragão, I., Chalfine, A., Dumpis, U., Esteves, F., Giamarellou, H., Muzlovic, I., Nardi, G., Petrikkos, G. L., Tomic, V., Martí, A. T., Stammet, P., Brun-Buisson, C., & Bonten, M. J. M.
Venue
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-01
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
31-39
ISSN
1473-3099 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2136443076
Cited by
356
References
1
FWCI
31.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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.

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Interventions to reduce colonisation and transmission of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria in intensive care units: an interrupted time series study and cluster randomised trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s1473-3099(13)70295-0
The paper
Derde, L. P. G., Cooper, B. S., Goossens, H., Malhotra-Kumar, S., Willems, R. J. L., Gniadkowski, M., Hryniewicz, W., Empel, J., Dautzenberg, M. J. D., Annane, D., Aragão, I., Chalfine, A., Dumpis, U., Esteves, F., Giamarellou, H., Muzlovic, I., Nardi, G., Petrikkos, G. L., Tomic, V., . . . Bonten, M. J. M. (2014). Interventions to reduce colonisation and transmission of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria in intensive care units: an interrupted time series study and cluster randomised trial. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1473-3099(13)70295-0

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.