RESUMEN
Background: It is generally accepted that shoes and floors are contaminated with pathogens including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant enterococci (VRE), and Clostridium difficile, yet correlation to clinical infection is not well established. Because floors and shoes are low-touch surfaces, these are considered non-critical surfaces for cleaning and disinfection. The purpose of this review is to assess peer-reviewed literature inclusive of floors and shoe soles as contributors to the dissemination of infectious pathogens within healthcare settings. Methods: Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) methodology, PubMed and Medline were searched for articles assessing the presence of pathogens on or the transmission of pathogens between or from floors or shoe soles/shoe covers. Inclusion criteria are the human population within healthcare or controlled experimental settings after 1999 and available in English. Results: Four hundred eighteen articles were screened, and 18 articles documented recovery of bacterial and viral pathogens from both floors and shoes. Seventy-two percent (13/18) of these were published after 2015, showing increased consideration of the transfer of pathogens to high-touch surfaces from shoe soles or floors during patient care. Conclusions: There is evidence that floors and shoes in healthcare settings are contaminated with several different species of health-care-associated pathogens including MRSA, VRE, and Clostridium difficile.
Asunto(s)
Infección Hospitalaria , Staphylococcus aureus Resistente a Meticilina , Enterococos Resistentes a la Vancomicina , Humanos , Infección Hospitalaria/prevención & control , Infección Hospitalaria/microbiología , Zapatos , Bacterias , Atención a la SaludRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Chronic breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) is a potentially serious complication following treatment. Monitoring for progression to BCRL may allow for earlier detection and intervention, reducing the rate of progression to chronic BCRL. Therefore, the purpose of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the impact of monitoring techniques on the incidence of chronic BCRL among patients monitored by bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) and circumference as compared to background rates. METHODS: Eligible peer-reviewed studies from PubMed, CINHAL, or Google Scholar that were published in English from 2013 onward and conducted in North America, Europe, or Oceania. Incidence rates abstracted from studies were classified by BCRL monitoring method: background (no standardized BIS or circumference assessments), BIS or circumference. A random-effects model was used to calculate a pooled annualized estimate of BCRL incidence while accounting for clinical and methodological heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses examined differences in duration of follow-up as well as breast and axillary surgery. RESULTS: 50 studies were included, representing over 67,000 women. The annualized incidence of BCRL was 4.9% (95% CI: 4.3-5.5) for background studies (n = 35), 1.5% (95% CI: 0.6-2.4) for BIS-monitored studies (n = 7), and 7.7% (95% CI: 5.6-9.8) for circumference-monitored studies (n = 11). The cumulative BCRL incidence rate in BIS-monitored patients was 3.1% as compared to 12.9% with background monitoring (69% reduction) and 17.0% with circumference-monitored patients (81% reduction). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests that monitoring with BIS allowing for early intervention significantly reduces the relative risk of chronic BCRL with a 69% and 81% reduction compared to background and circumference, respectively. Circumference monitoring did not appear to provide a benefit with respect to chronic BCRL incidence. Based on these results, BIS should be considered for BCRL screening in order to detect subclinical BCRL and reduce rates of chronic BCRL, particularly in high-risk patients.
Asunto(s)
Linfedema del Cáncer de Mama , Neoplasias de la Mama , Linfedema , Axila , Linfedema del Cáncer de Mama/diagnóstico , Linfedema del Cáncer de Mama/epidemiología , Linfedema del Cáncer de Mama/etiología , Neoplasias de la Mama/complicaciones , Neoplasias de la Mama/epidemiología , Europa (Continente) , Femenino , Humanos , Linfedema/diagnóstico , Linfedema/epidemiología , Linfedema/etiología , Análisis EspectralRESUMEN
When interpreting genome-wide association peaks, it is common to annotate each peak by searching for genes with plausible relationships to the trait. However, "all that glitters is not gold"-one might interpret apparent patterns in the data as plausible even when the peak is a false positive. Accordingly, we sought to see how human annotators interpreted association results containing a mixture of peaks from both the original trait and a genetically uncorrelated "synthetic" trait. Two of us prepared a mix of original and synthetic peaks of three significance categories from five different scans along with relevant literature search results and then we all annotated these regions. Three annotators also scored the strength of evidence connecting each peak to the scanned trait and the likelihood of further studying that region. While annotators found original peaks to have stronger evidence (p Bonferroni = 0.017) and higher likelihood of further study ( p Bonferroni = 0.006) than synthetic peaks, annotators often made convincing connections between the synthetic peaks and the original trait, finding these connections 55% of the time. These results show that it is not difficult for annotators to make convincing connections between synthetic association signals and genes found in those regions.