Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 187

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Prevalence and Risk Factors for Nosocomial Infections in Four University Hospitals in Switzerland

Open access
Pittet, Didier, Harbarth, Stephan, Ruef, Christian, Francioli, Patrick, Sudre, Philippe, Pétignat, Christiane, Trampuz, Andrej, Widmer, Andreas·1999·Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology

Abstract

Objective: To determine the prevalence and risk factors for nosocomial infections (NIs) in four Swiss university hospitals. Design and Setting: A 1-week period-prevalence survey conducted in May 1996 in medical, surgical, and intensive-care wards of four Swiss university hospitals (900-1,500 beds). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definitions were used, except that asymptomatic bacteriuria was not categorized as NI. Study variables included patient demographics, primary diagnosis, comorbidities, exposure to medical and surgical risk factors, and use of antimicrobials. Risk factors for NIs were determined using logistic regression with adjustment for length of hospital stay, study center, device use, and patients' comorbidities. Results: 176 NI were recorded in 156 of 1,349 screened patients (11.6%; interhospital range, 9.8%-13.5%). The most frequent NI was surgical-site infection (53; 30%), followed by urinary tract infection (39; 22%), lower respiratory tract infection (27; 15%), and bloodstream infection (23; 13%). Prevalence of NI was higher in critical-care units (25%) than in medical (9%) and surgical wards (12%). Overall, 65% of NIs were culture-proven; the leading pathogens were Enterobacteriaceae(44; 28%),Staphylococcus aureus(20; 13%),Pseudomonas aeruginosa(17; 11%), and Candida species (16; 10%). Independent risk factors for NI were central venous catheter (CVC) use (odds ratio [OR], 3.35; 95% confidence interval [CI 95], 2.91-3.80), admission to intensive care (OR, 1.75; CI 95, 1.30-2.21), emergency admission (OR, 1.57; CI 95, 1.15-2.00), impaired functional status (Karnofsky index 1-4: OR, 2.56; CI 95, 1.95-3.17), and McCabe classification of ultimately fatal (OR, 2.50; CI 95, 2.04-2.96) or rapidly fatal (OR 2.25; CI 95,1.52-2.98) underlying condition. Conclusions: According to the results of this survey, NIs are frequent in Swiss university hospitals. This investigation confirms the importance of CVCs as a major risk factor for NI. Patient comorbidities must be taken into account to adjust for case mix in any study comparing interhospital or intrahospital infection rates.

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 · 10.1086/501554

Cites

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

Cited by

See all 187

Metadata

Authors
Pittet, D., Harbarth, S., Ruef, C., Francioli, P., Sudre, P., Pétignat, C., Trampuz, A., & Widmer, A.
Venue
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology
Published
1999-01
Volume
20
Issue
01
Pages
37-42
ISSN
  • 0899-823X (ISSN-L)
  • 1559-6834
OpenAlex
W2132069206
Cited by
187
References
0
FWCI
6.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Prevalence and Risk Factors for Nosocomial Infections in Four University Hospitals in Switzerland. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/501554
The paper
Pittet, D., Harbarth, S., Ruef, C., Francioli, P., Sudre, P., Pétignat, C., Trampuz, A., & Widmer, A. (1999). Prevalence and Risk Factors for Nosocomial Infections in Four University Hospitals in Switzerland. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1086/501554

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.