Quality appraisal of guidelines on physical restraints in intensive care units: A systematic review

To perform a systematic review of the literature on the control of oral biofilms and the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia, in addition to assessing and classifying studies as to the grade of recommendation and level of evidence. The review was based on PubMed, LILACS, and Scopus databases, from January 1st, 2000 until December 31st, 2012. Studies evaluating oral hygiene care related to nosocomial infections in patients hospitalized in intensive care units were selected according to the inclusion criteria. Full published articles available in English, Spanish, or Portuguese, which approached chemical or mechanical oral hygiene techniques in preventing pneumonia, interventions performed, and their results were included. After analysis, the articles were classified according to level of evidence and grade of recommendation according to the criteria of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. A total of 297 abstracts were found, 14 of which were full articles that met our criteria. Most articles included a study group with chlorhexidine users and a control group with placebo users for oral hygiene in the prevention of pneumonia. All articles were classified as B in the level of evidence, and 12 articles were classified as 2B and two articles as 2C in grade of recommendation. It was observed that the control of oral biofilm reduces the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia, but the fact that most articles had an intermediate grade of recommendation makes clear the need to conduct randomized controlled trials with minimal bias to establish future guidelines for oral hygiene in intensive care units.

Download Full-text

Sepsis prediction during outbreaks at neonatal intensive care units through body surface screening for Gram-negative bacteria: systematic review and meta-analysis

BMC Research Notes ◽

10.1186/s13104-018-4033-y ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 11 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Thomas Harder ◽

Sebastian Haller ◽

Tim Eckmanns ◽

Juliane Seidel

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Intensive Care ◽

Intensive Care Units ◽

Body Surface ◽

Neonatal Intensive Care ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Neonatal Intensive Care Units ◽

Gram Negative Bacteria ◽

Gram Negative

Download Full-text

Handwash versus hand-rub practices for preventing nosocomial infection in hospital intensive care units: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Canadian Journal of Infection Control ◽

10.36584/cjic.2020.009 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 82-90

Author(s):

S Bello ◽

EA Bamgboye ◽

DT Ajayi ◽

EN Ossai ◽

EC Aniwada ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Intensive Care ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Nosocomial Infection ◽

Intensive Care Units ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Healthcare Providers ◽

Length Of Hospital Stay ◽

Clinical Effectiveness ◽

Infection Rates

Background: Compliance with handwashing in busy healthcare facilities, such as intensive care units (ICUs), is suboptimal and alcohol hand-rub preparations have been suggested to improve compliance. There is no evidence on the comparative effectiveness between handwash and hand-rub strategies. This systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of handwash versus hand-rub strategies for preventing nosocomial infection in ICUs. Methods Studies conducted in ICUs and indexed in PubMed comparing the clinical effectiveness and adverse events between handwash and hand-rub groups were included in a systematic review. The primary outcome was nosocomial infection rates. Secondary outcomes included microbial counts on healthcare providers’ hands, mortality rates, patient/hospital cost of treatment of healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs), length of ICU/hospital stays, and adverse events. Studies were independently screened and data extracted by at least two authors. Meta-analyses of risk ratios (RR), incidence rate ratios (IRR), odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD), were conducted using the RevMan 5.3 software. Results: Seven studies published between 1992-2009 and involving a total of 11,663 patients were included. Five studies (10,981 patients) contributed data to the ICU acquired nosocomial infection rates. The pooled IRR was 0.71 (95% CI 0.61, 0.82; I2 = 94%). On sensitivity analysis, pooled IRR was 0.39 (95% CI 0.32, 0.48; 4 studies; 8,247 patients; I2 = 0%) in favour of hand rub. The pooled OR for mortality was 0.95 (95% CI 0.78, 1.61; 4 studies; 3,475 patients; I2 = 39%). The pooled MD for length of hospital stay was -0.74 (95% CI -2.83, 1.34; 3 studies; 741 patients; I2 = 0%). The pooled OR for an undesirable skin effect was 0.37 (95% CI 0.23, 0.60; 3 studies;1504 patients; I2 = 0%) in favour of hand rub. Overall quality of evidence was low. Conclusion: Hand rub appeared more effective when compared to handwash in ICUs.

Download Full-text