Alliance for Vascular Access Teaching and Research Group, Menzies Health Institute, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Nursing & Midwifery Research Centre, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2019 Oct;40(10):1100-1106. doi: 10.1017/ice.2019.205. Epub 2019 Jul 31.
To establish the reliability of the application of National Health and Safety Network (NHSN) central-line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) criteria within established reporting systems internationally.
Diagnostic-test accuracy systematic review.
We conducted a search of Medline, SCOPUS, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL (EbscoHost), and PubMed (NCBI). Cohort studies were eligible for inclusion if they compared publicly reported CLABSI rates and were conducted by independent and expertly trained reviewers using NHSN/Centers for Disease Control (or equivalent) criteria. Two independent reviewers screened, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the QUADAS 2 tool. Sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values were analyzed.
A systematic search identified 1,259 publications; 9 studies were eligible for inclusion (n = 7,160 central lines). Publicly reported CLABSI rates were more likely to be underestimated (7 studies) than overestimated (2 studies). Specificity ranged from 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58-0.81) to 0.99 (95% CI, 0.99-1.00) and sensitivity ranged from 0.42 (95% CI, 0.15-0.72) to 0.88 (95% CI, 0.77-0.95). Four studies, which included a consecutive series of patients (whole cohort), reported CLABSI incidence between 9.8% and 20.9%, and absolute CLABSI rates were underestimated by 3.3%-4.4%. The risk of bias was low to moderate in most included studies.
Our findings suggest consistent underestimation of true CLABSI incidence within publicly reported rates, weakening the validity and reliability of surveillance measures. Auditing, education, and adequate resource allocation is necessary to ensure that surveillance data are accurate and suitable for benchmarking and quality improvement measures over time.
Prospectively registered with International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO ID CRD42015021989; June 7, 2015). https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID%3dCRD42015021989.
在国际既定报告系统内建立国家卫生与安全网络(NHSN)中心静脉相关血流感染(CLABSI)标准应用的可靠性。
诊断性试验准确性的系统评价。
我们检索了 Medline、SCOPUS、Cochrane 图书馆、CINAHL(EbscoHost)和 PubMed(NCBI)。如果队列研究比较了公开报告的 CLABSI 发生率,并由独立且经过专业培训的审查员使用 NHSN/疾病控制中心(或同等机构)标准进行,则可纳入本研究。两名独立的审查员使用 QUADAS-2 工具筛选、提取数据并评估偏倚风险。分析了敏感性、特异性、阴性和阳性预测值。
系统检索共识别出 1259 篇文献;9 项研究符合纳入标准(n=7160 条中心静脉导管)。公开报告的 CLABSI 发生率更有可能被低估(7 项研究)而非高估(2 项研究)。特异性范围为 0.70(95%置信区间 [CI],0.58-0.81)至 0.99(95% CI,0.99-1.00),敏感性范围为 0.42(95% CI,0.15-0.72)至 0.88(95% CI,0.77-0.95)。4 项纳入了连续患者系列(整个队列)的研究报告 CLABSI 发生率为 9.8%至 20.9%,绝对 CLABSI 率被低估了 3.3%至 4.4%。大多数纳入的研究中,偏倚风险为低到中度。
我们的研究结果表明,在公开报告的 CLABSI 发生率中存在持续的低估,削弱了监测措施的有效性和可靠性。需要进行审核、教育和适当的资源分配,以确保监测数据准确,并适合随着时间的推移进行基准测试和质量改进措施。
前瞻性注册于国际系统评价注册平台(PROSPERO ID CRD42015021989;2015 年 6 月 7 日)。https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID%3dCRD42015021989。