↓ Skip to main content

Nasal decontamination for the prevention of surgical site infection inStaphylococcus aureuscarriers

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
24 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
130 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Nasal decontamination for the prevention of surgical site infection inStaphylococcus aureuscarriers
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012462.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhenmi Liu, Gill Norman, Zipporah Iheozor-Ejiofor, Jason KF Wong, Emma J Crosbie, Peter Wilson

Abstract

Surgical site infection rates in the month following surgery vary from 1% to 5%. Due to the large number of surgical procedures conducted annually, the costs of these surgical site infections (SSIs) can be considerable in financial and social terms. Nasal decontamination using antibiotics or antiseptics is performed to reduce the risk of SSIs by preventing organisms from the nasal cavity being transferred to the skin where a surgical incision will be made. Staphylococcus aureus (S aureus) colonises the nasal cavity and skin of carriers and can cause infection in open or unhealed surgical wounds. S aureus is the leading nosocomial (hospital-acquired) pathogen in hospitals worldwide. The potential effectiveness of nasal decontamination of S aureus is thought to be dependent on both the antibiotic/antiseptic used and the dose of application; however, it is unclear whether nasal decontamination actually reduces postoperative wound infection in S aureus carriers. To assess the effects of nasal decontamination on preventing surgical site infections (SSIs) in people who are S aureus carriers undergoing surgery. In September 2016 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched three clinical trial registries and the references of included studies and relevant systematic reviews. There were no restrictions based on language, date of publication or study setting. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which enrolled S aureus carriers with any type of surgery and assessed the use of nasal decontamination with antiseptic/antibiotic properties were included in the review. Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and GRADE assessment. We located two studies (291 participants) for inclusion in this review. The trials were clinically heterogeneous with differences in duration of follow-up, and nasal decontamination regimens. One study compared mupirocin (2% contained in a base of polyethylene glycol 400 and polyethylene glycol 3350) with a placebo in elective cardiac surgery patients; and one study compared Anerdian (iodine 0.45% to 0.57% (W/V), chlorhexidine acetate 0.09% to 0.11% (W/V)) with no treatment also in cardiac surgery patients. The trials reported limited outcome data on SSI, adverse events and secondary outcomes (e.g. S aureus SSI, mortality). Mupirocin compared with placeboThis study found no clear difference in SSI risk following use of mupirocin compared with placebo (1 trial, 257 participants); risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 3.25 based on 18/130 events in the mupirocin group and 11/127 in the control group; low-certainty evidence (downgraded twice due to imprecision). Anerdian compared with no treatmentIt is uncertain whether there is a difference in SSI risk following treatment with Anerdian compared with no treatment (1 trial, 34 participants); RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.08 based on 1/18 events in the Anerdian group and 1/16 in the control group; very low certainty evidence (downgraded twice due to imprecision and once due to risk of bias). There is currently limited rigorous RCT evidence available regarding the clinical effectiveness of nasal decontamination in the prevention of SSI. This limitation is specific to the focused question our review addresses, looking at nasal decontamination as a single intervention in participants undergoing surgery who are known S aureus carriers. We were only able to identify two studies that met the inclusion criteria for this review and one of these was very small and poorly reported. The potential benefits and harms of using decontamination for the prevention of SSI in this group of people remain uncertain.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 130 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 15%
Researcher 15 12%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Other 12 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Other 34 26%
Unknown 25 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 8%
Psychology 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 21 16%
Unknown 35 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 04 November 2019.
All research outputs
#1,306,704
of 14,224,532 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,743
of 10,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,712
of 265,652 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#121
of 250 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,224,532 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,900 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
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 265,652 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 250 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.