In the December 2011 Lancet ID, Andrew Simor from the University of Toronto reviewed articles listed in PubMed from 1989-2010 assessing the benefits of S. aureus decolonization. There were no surprising results. In fact, most of the conclusions were hedged. For example he says that "some data support the use of decolonisation in surgical patients colonised with S aureus, particularly in those undergoing cardiothoracic procedures" and "patients undergoing chronic haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis might benefit from decolonisation, although repeated courses of treatment are needed, and the effects are modest." The hedging is not a criticism of the author, but rather due to the lack of funding for proper infection prevention studies. What is surprising is that this is a single-author paper. Any systematic review should be completed by more than one author, in my opinion. Another limitation is the lack of summary odds ratios. However, this is a very good literature review and a wonderful resource.
Source: Simor AE, Lancet ID December 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
OSHA! OSHA! OSHA!
In many parts of the country, as rates of COVID-19 are declining and vaccination coverage is increasing (albeit with substantial variati...
-
Back on clinical service again and having more thoughts on poor hospital design. Last month I wondered why there were no stethoscope wipe... -
Those that follow me on twitter or the blog have probably noticed my recent focus on trying to understand the emergence of compulsory influe... -
REUTERS/Athit Perawongmetha With the assistance of a great supply management team, we have been able to outfit all of our clinical staff wit...
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for submitting your comment to the Controversies blog. To reduce spam, all comments will be reviewed by the blog moderator prior to publishing. However, all legitimate comments will be published, whether they agree with or oppose the content of the post.