Effectiveness of infection prevention and control interventions, excluding personal protective equipment, to prevent nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review and call for action.
Effectiveness of infection prevention and control interventions, excluding personal protective equipment, to prevent nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review and call for action.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.infpip.2021.100192
复制
发表时间：
2022-03
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Knight GM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jafari Y;Yin M;Lim C;Pople D;Evans S;Stimson J;Pham TM;LSHTM CMMID COVID-19 working group;Read JM;Robotham JV;Cooper BS;Knight GM
为了限制SARS-CoV-2在医院内的传播，医院采取了许多感染预防和控制(IPC)干预措施。这项系统审查的目的是确定这些干预措施有效性的证据。我们对5个数据库(Ovid MEDLINE、EMBASE、CENTAL、新冠肺炎文件夹(印刷前)、科学网)进行了文献检索。使用SWIFT ActiveScreener软件筛选2020年1月1日至2021年4月6日发表的英文标题和摘要。由Cochrane有效实践和护理组织定义的干预研究评估了IPC干预措施，评估了患者或医护人员感染SARS-CoV-2的结果。个人防护装备(PPE)被排除在外，因为这一干预之前已经过审查。使用Cochrane随机试验工具(RoB2)和干预措施的非随机研究(Robins-I)评估偏倚的风险。从23,156篇筛选的文章中，我们确定了7篇符合纳入标准的文章，所有这些文章都评估了预防医护人员感染的干预措施，其中大部分集中在预防措施的有效性上。由于干预措施的异质性，我们没有进行荟萃分析。所有用于预防的药物都很少或根本没有证据表明对SARS-CoV-2感染有效。我们没有发现任何评估干预措施有效性的研究，包括但不限于筛查、隔离和改善通风。评估SARS-CoV-2的IPC措施的干预研究(不包括PPE)的证据有限。这项审查呼吁采取紧急行动，实施此类研究，以便为保护我们最脆弱的人口和医护人员的政策提供信息。
Many infection prevention and control (IPC) interventions have been adopted by hospitals to limit nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2. The aim of this systematic review is to identify evidence on the effectiveness of these interventions. We conducted a literature search of five databases (OVID MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, COVID-19 Portfolio (pre-print), Web of Science). SWIFT ActiveScreener software was used to screen English titles and abstracts published between 1st January 2020 and 6th April 2021. Intervention studies, defined by Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care, that evaluated IPC interventions with an outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection in either patients or healthcare workers were included. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was excluded as this intervention had been previously reviewed. Risks of bias were assessed using the Cochrane tool for randomised trials (RoB2) and non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I). From 23,156 screened articles, we identified seven articles that met the inclusion criteria, all of which evaluated interventions to prevent infections in healthcare workers and the majority of which were focused on effectiveness of prophylaxes. Due to heterogeneity in interventions, we did not conduct a meta-analysis. All agents used for prophylaxes have little to no evidence of effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infections. We did not find any studies evaluating the effectiveness of interventions including but not limited to screening, isolation and improved ventilation. There is limited evidence from interventional studies, excluding PPE, evaluating IPC measures for SARS-CoV-2. This review calls for urgent action to implement such studies to inform policies to protect our most vulnerable populations and healthcare workers.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
6.9
作者：
Patterson, B.;Marks, M.;Brown, M.
通讯作者：
Brown, M.
影响因子：
50
作者：
Nguyen, Long H.;Drew, David A.;Chan, Andrew T.
通讯作者：
Chan, Andrew T.
影响因子：
5.7
作者：
Jacobs, Josephine C.;Jarvik, Jeffrey G.;Barnett, Paul G.
通讯作者：
Barnett, Paul G.
DOI：
10.1136/bmj.i6795
发表时间：
2017-03-06
期刊：
BMJ (Clinical research ed.)
影响因子：
--
作者：
Pinnock H;Barwick M;Carpenter CR;Eldridge S;Grandes G;Griffiths CJ;Rycroft-Malone J;Meissner P;Murray E;Patel A;Sheikh A;Taylor SJ;StaRI Group
通讯作者：
StaRI Group
影响因子：
11.8
作者：
Howard BE;Phillips J;Tandon A;Maharana A;Elmore R;Mav D;Sedykh A;Thayer K;Merrick BA;Walker V;Rooney A;Shah RR
通讯作者：
Shah RR