ArticleThe Journal of hospital infection2023
Infection prevention and control between legal requirements and German Society for Hygiene and Microbiology expert assessments: a cross-sectional study in September-November 2022.
Article in The Journal of hospital infection, 2023. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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
12 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn contrast to the beginning of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), pandemic, more and more hospital issues are now regulated by policy.
aimTo identify differences between expert recommendations and legal requirements regarding infection prevention and control (IPC) strategies.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted between 29
findingsThe majority (66%) of experts recommended universal mask usage, with 34% recommending it seasonally, even after the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Medical microbiology (MM) experts were more likely to recommend continuing to wear the masks indefinitely compared with IPC experts. Concerning the mask type, medical masks were recommended more frequently by IPC experts (47.3%), while FFP2 masks were preferred by MM experts (31.8%). The majority (54.7%) of experts recommended universal screening of employees, mainly in settings with extremely vulnerable patients and if regional incidence rates were high, at a frequency of twice per week. The dominant advice (recommended by at least 50% of experts) for employees exposed to SARS-CoV-2 was daily testing and wearing a mask, regardless of the length of exposure.
conclusionsExpert recommendations deviate from the legal requirements and appear to be more differentiated and proportional. The influence of specific experience and expertise on mask recommendations should be investigated in more detail. For relevant policy decisions, a quick, focused and broad-based consultation of expertise could be of added value.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.