↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Infant isolation and cohorting for preventing or reducing transmission of healthcare‐associated infections in neonatal units

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2023
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Infant isolation and cohorting for preventing or reducing transmission of healthcare‐associated infections in neonatal units
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2023
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012458.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Morcos Hanna, Rita Shah, Lucila Marquez, Rebecca Barzegar, Adrienne Gordon, Mohan Pammi

Abstract

Neonatal healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) result in increased morbidity and mortality, as well as increased healthcare costs. Patient isolation measures, i.e. single-room isolation or the cohorting of patients with similar infections, remain a recommended and commonly used practice for preventing horizontal spread of infections in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).  OBJECTIVES: Our primary objective was to assess the effect of single-room isolation or cohorting, or both for preventing transmission of HAIs or colonization with HAI-causing pathogens in newborn infants less than six months of age admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Our secondary objective was to assess the effect of single-room isolation or cohorting, or both on neonatal mortality and perceived or documented adverse effects in newborn infants admitted to the NICU.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registries. There were no restrictions to date, language or publication type. We also checked the reference lists of studies identified for full-text review.  SELECTION CRITERIA: Types of studies: cluster-randomized or quasi-randomized trials at the level of the cluster (where clusters may be defined by NICU, hospital, ward, or other subunits of the hospital). We also included cross-over trials with a washout period of more than four months (arbitrarily defined). newborn infants less than six months of age in neonatal units that implemented patient isolation or cohorting as infection control measures to prevent HAIs. Types of interventions: patient isolation measures (single-room isolation or cohorting, or both of infants with similar colonization or infections) compared to routine isolation measures. the primary outcome was the rate of transmission of HAIs as estimated by the infection and colonization rates in the NICU. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality during hospital stay at 28 days of age, length of hospital stay, as well as potential adverse effects of isolation or cohorting measures, or both. The standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal were used to identify studies and assess the methodological quality of eligible cluster-randomized trials. The certainty of the evidence was to be assessed by the GRADE method as evidence of high, moderate, low, or very low certainty. Infection and colonization rates were to be expressed as rate ratios for each trial and if appropriate for meta-analysis, the generic inverse variance method in RevMan was to be used. We did not identify any published or ongoing trials to include in the review. The review found no evidence from randomized trials to either support or refute the use of patient isolation measures (single-room isolation or cohorting) in neonates with HAIs. Risks secondary to infection control measures need to be balanced against the benefits of decreasing horizontal transmission in the neonatal unit for optimal neonatal outcomes. There is an urgent need to research the effectiveness of patient isolation measures for preventing the transmission of HAIs in neonatal units. Well-designed trials randomizing clusters of units or hospitals to a type of patient isolation method intervention are warranted.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 12%
Student > Master 4 12%
Unspecified 2 6%
Other 2 6%
Student > Bachelor 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 18 55%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 21%
Unspecified 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 19 58%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 June 2023.
All research outputs
#22,835,295
of 25,462,162 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#12,179
of 12,766 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#315,990
of 374,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#110
of 112 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,462,162 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,766 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 374,011 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 112 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.