PBM Module 3 Evidence-tabel

Alhmidi & Cadnum (2021)

Type of study: observational

Setting and country: medical-surgical ward, USA

Funding and conflicts of interest: funded by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Conflicts of interest: no

Inclusion criteria:
NA

Exclusion criteria:
source patients was excluded if on contact precautions or if their anticipated length of stay was <1 day

N total at baseline:
30 patients

Important prognostic factors:
Not reported

Groups comparable at baseline?
No information

Describe intervention (treatment / procedure / test):

In total, 30 source patients had 1 cauliflower mosaic virus surrogate marker applied to their skin and clothing and a second to their bed rail and bedside table. Personnel caring for the source patients were randomized to wear:
-gloves
-gloves plus cover gowns

Describe control (treatment / procedure / test):

No barrier

Length of follow-up:
Max interactions up to 7 subsequent patients

Outcome measures and effect size (include 95%CI and p-value if available):

No barrier
57.8% transfer of the maker

Gloves
31.1% transfer
OR 0.16; 95% CI 0.02-0.73

Gloves plus gown
25.9% transfer
OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.01–0.51

Alhmidi & Li (2021)

Type of study: observational

Setting and country:

Funding and conflicts of interest:

Inclusion criteria:
NA

Exclusion criteria:
NA

N total at baseline:
30 healthcare workers

Describe intervention (treatment / procedure / test):

personnel each performed 3 standardized examinations of mannequins contaminated with pathogen surrogate markers while wearing:
- gloves
- gloves plus gowns followed by examination of a noncontaminated mannequin

Describe control (treatment / procedure / test):

personnel each performed 3 standardized examinations of mannequins contaminated with pathogen surrogate markers while wearing no barriers

Length of follow-up:

Loss-to-follow-up:
NA

Incomplete outcome data:
NA

Outcome measures and effect size (include 95%CI and p-value if available):

Transfer by hands
Gloves vs no barrier: OR 0.02; 95% CI 0–0.12 P=0.001
Gloves+gown vs no barrier: OR 0.06; 95% CI 0.01–0.26 p=0.002

Transfer by stethoscope:
Gloves vs no barrier: OR 0.31; 95%CI 0.08–1.08 p=0.078
Gloves+gown vs no barrier: OR 0.14; 95%CI 0.03-0.49 P = .005

To environment
Gloves vs no barrier: OR 0 (0–0) 0
Gloves+gown vs no barrier: OR 0 (0–0) 0

Harris (2021)

Type of study: RCT (cluster randomized)

Setting and country: intensive care unit, USA

Funding and conflicts of interest: AHRQ
2 authors received funds from organizations outside the submitted work

Inclusion criteria:
20 medical and surgical ICUs

Exclusion criteria:
Not reported

N total at baseline:
26246 patients (20 ICUs)/40492 swabs
I: 10 ICUs
C: 10 ICUs

Important prognostic factors:
Not reported

Describe intervention (treatment / procedure / test):

All healthcare workers were required to wear gloves and gowns for all patient contact and when entering any patient room

Describe control (treatment / procedure / test):

Usual care

Length of follow-up:
10 months

Loss-to-follow-up:
Not reported (this was a secondary analysis)

Incomplete outcome data:
Not reported (this was a secondary analysis)

Outcome measures and effect size (include 95%CI and p-value if available):

acquisition of any antibiotic-resistant gram-negative bacteria: RR 0.90 (95% CI, .71–1.12; P = .34)

carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae RR, 0.86 [95% CI, .60–1.24; P = .43

carbapenemresistant Acinetobacter RR, 0.81 [95% CI, .52–1.27; P = .36

carbapenem-resistant Pseudomonas RR, 0.88 [95% CI, .55–1.42]; P = .62

extended-spectrum β-lactamase–producing bacteria (RR, 0.94 [95% CI, .71–1.24]; P = 0.67).

Chang (2019)

See paper