43 research outputs found
Does vancomycin prescribing intervention affect vancomycin-resistant enterococcus infection and colonization in hospitals? A systematic review
BACKGROUND: Vancomycin resistant enterococcus (VRE) is a major cause of nosocomial infections in the United States and may be associated with greater morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs than vancomycin-susceptible enterococcus. Current guidelines for the control of VRE include prudent use of vancomycin. While vancomycin exposure appears to be a risk factor for VRE acquisition in individual patients, the effect of vancomycin usage at the population level is not known. We conducted a systematic review to determine the impact of reducing vancomycin use through prescribing interventions on the prevalence and incidence of VRE colonization and infection in hospitals within the United States. METHODS: To identify relevant studies, we searched three electronic databases, and hand searched selected journals. Thirteen studies from 12 articles met our inclusion criteria. Data were extracted and summarized for study setting, design, patient characteristics, types of intervention(s), and outcome measures. The relative risk, 95% confidence interval, and p-value associated with change in VRE acquisition pre- and post-vancomycin prescription interventions were calculated and compared. Heterogeneity in study results was formally explored by stratified analysis. RESULTS: No randomized clinical trials on this topic were found. Each of the 13 included studies used a quasi-experimental design of low hierarchy. Seven of the 13 studies reported statistically significant reductions in VRE acquisition following interventions, three studies reported no significant change, and three studies reported increases in VRE acquisition, one of which reported statistical significance. Results ranged from a reduction of 82.5% to an increase of 475%. Studies of specific wards, which included sicker patients, were more likely to report positive results than studies of an entire hospital including general inpatients (Fisher's exact test 0.029). The type of intervention, endemicity status, type of study design, and the duration of intervention were not found to significantly modify the results. Among the six studies that implemented vancomycin reduction strategies as the sole intervention, two of six (33%) found a significant reduction in VRE colonization and/or infection. In contrast, among studies implementing additional VRE control measures, five of seven (71%) reported a significant reduction. CONCLUSION: It was not possible to conclusively determine a potential role for vancomycin usage reductions in controlling VRE colonization and infection in hospitals in the United States. The effectiveness of such interventions and their sustainability remains poorly defined because of the heterogeneity and quality of studies. Future research using high-quality study designs and implementing vancomycin as the sole intervention are needed to answer this question
Mathematical properties of weighted impact factors based on measures of prestige of the citing journals
The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1741-0An abstract construction for general weighted impact factors is introduced. We
show that the classical weighted impact factors are particular cases of our model, but it can
also be used for defining new impact measuring tools for other sources of information as
repositories of datasets providing the mathematical support for a new family of altmet-
rics. Our aim is to show the main mathematical properties of this class of impact measuring
tools, that hold as consequences of their mathematical structure and does not depend on the
definition of any given index nowadays in use. In order to show the power of our approach
in a well-known setting, we apply our construction to analyze the stability of the ordering
induced in a list of journals by the 2-year impact factor (IF2). We study the change of this
ordering when the criterium to define it is given by the numerical value of a new weighted
impact factor, in which IF2 is used for defining the weights. We prove that, if we assume
that the weight associated to a citing journal increases with its IF2, then the ordering given
in the list by the new weighted impact factor coincides with the order defined by the IF2. We give a quantitative bound for the errors committed. We also show two examples of
weighted impact factors defined by weights associated to the prestige of the citing journal
for the fields of MATHEMATICS and MEDICINE, GENERAL AND INTERNAL,
checking if they satisfy the increasing behavior mentioned above.Ferrer Sapena, A.; SΓ‘nchez PΓ©rez, EA.; GonzΓ‘lez, LM.; Peset Mancebo, MF.; Aleixandre Benavent, R. (2015). Mathematical properties of weighted impact factors based on measures of prestige of the citing journals. Scientometrics. 105(3):2089-2108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1741-0S208921081053Ahlgren, P., & Waltman, L. (2014). The correlation between citation-based and expert-based assessments of publication channels: SNIP and SJR vs. Norwegian quality assessments. Journal of Informetrics, 8, 985β996.Aleixandre Benavent, R., Valderrama ZuriΓ‘n, J. C., & GonzΓ‘lez Alcaide, G. (2007). Scientific journals impact factor: Limitations and alternative indicators. El Profesional de la InformaciΓ³n, 16(1), 4β11.Altmann, K. G., & Gorman, G. E. (1998). The usefulness of impact factor in serial selection: A rank and mean analysis using ecology journals. Library Acquisitions-Practise and Theory, 22, 147β159.Arnold, D. N., & Fowler, K. K. (2011). Nefarious numbers. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 58(3), 434β437.Beliakov, G., & James, S. (2012). Using linear programming for weights identification of generalized bonferroni means in R. In: Proceedings of MDAI 2012 modeling decisions for artificial intelligence. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 7647, pp. 35β44.Beliakov, G., & James, S. (2011). Citation-based journal ranks: The use of fuzzy measures. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 167, 101β119.Buela-Casal, G. (2003). Evaluating quality of articles and scientific journals. Proposal of weighted impact factor and a quality index. Psicothema, 15(1), 23β25.Dorta-Gonzalez, P., & Dorta-Gonzalez, M. I. (2013). Comparing journals from different fields of science and social science through a JCR subject categories normalized impact factor. Scientometrics, 95(2), 645β672.Dorta-Gonzalez, P., Dorta-Gonzalez, M. I., Santos-Penate, D. R., & Suarez-Vega, R. (2014). Journal topic citation potential and between-field comparisons: The topic normalized impact factor. Journal of Informetrics, 8(2), 406β418.Egghe, L., & Rousseau, R. (2002). A general frame-work for relative impact indicators. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 27(1), 29β48.Gagolewski, M., & Mesiar, R. (2014). Monotone measures and universal integrals in a uniform framework for the scientific impact assessment problem. Information Sciences, 263, 166β174.Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA, 295(1), 90β93.Habibzadeh, F., & Yadollahie, M. (2008). Journal weighted impact factor: A proposal. Journal of Informetrics, 2(2), 164β172.Klement, E., Mesiar, R., & Pap, E. (2010). A universal integral as common frame for Choquet and Sugeno integral. IEEE Transaction on Fuzzy System, 18, 178β187.Leydesdorff, L., & Opthof, T. (2010). Scopusβs source normalized impact per paper (SNIP) versus a journal impact factor based on fractional counting of citations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61, 2365β2369.Li, Y. R., Radicchi, F., Castellano, C., & Ruiz-Castillo, J. (2013). Quantitative evaluation of alternative field normalization procedures. Journal of Informetrics, 7(3), 746β755.Moed, H. F. (2010). Measuring contextual citation impact of scientific journals. Journal of Informetrics, 4, 265β277.NISO. (2014). Alternative metrics initiative phase 1. White paper. http://www.niso.org/apps/group-public/download.php/13809/Altmetrics-project-phase1-white-paperOwlia, P., Vasei, M., Goliaei, B., & Nassiri, I. (2011). Normalized impact factor (NIF): An adjusted method for calculating the citation rate of biomedical journals. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 44(2), 216β220.Pinski, G., & Narin, F. (1976). Citation influence for journal aggregates of scientific publications: Theory, with application to the literature of physics. Information Processing and Management, 12, 297β312.Pinto, A. C., & Andrade, J. B. (1999). Impact factor of scientific journals: What is the meaning of this parameter? Quimica Nova, 22, 448β453.Raghunathan, M. S., & Srinivas, V. (2001). Significance of impact factor with regard to mathematics journals. Current Science, 80(5), 605.Ruiz Castillo, J., & Waltman, L. (2015). Field-normalized citation impact indicators using algorithmically constructed classification systems of science. Journal of Informetrics, 9, 102β117.Saha, S., Saint, S., & Christakis, D. A. (2003). Impact factor: A valid measure of journal quality? Journal of the Medical Library Association, 91, 42β46.Torra, V., & Narukawa, Y. (2008). The h-index and the number of citations: Two fuzzy integrals. IEEE Transaction on Fuzzy System, 16, 795β797.Torres-Salinas, D., & Jimenez-Contreras, E. (2010). Introduction and comparative study of the new scientific journals citation indicators in journal citation reports and scopus. El Profesional de la InformaciΓ³n, 19, 201β207.Waltman, L., & van Eck, N. J. (2008). Some comments on the journal weighted impact factor proposed by Habibzadeh and Yadollahie. Journal of Informetrics, 2(4), 369β372.Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., van Leeuwen, T. N., & Visser, M. S. (2013). Some modifications to the SNIP journal impact indicator. Journal of Informetrics, 7, 272β285.Zitt, M. (2011). Behind citing-side normalization of citations: some properties of the journal impact factor. Scientometrics, 89, 329β344.Zitt, M., & Small, H. (2008). Modifying the journal impact factor by fractional citation weighting: The audience factor. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, 1856β1860.Zyczkowski, K. (2010). Citation graph, weighted impact factors and performance indices. Scientometrics, 85(1), 301β315
Genetic Diversity among Enterococcus faecalis
Enterococcus faecalis, a ubiquitous member of mammalian gastrointestinal flora, is a leading cause of nosocomial infections and a growing public health concern. The enterococci responsible for these infections are often resistant to multiple antibiotics and have become notorious for their ability to acquire and disseminate antibiotic resistances. In the current study, we examined genetic relationships among 106 strains of E. faecalis isolated over the past 100 years, including strains identified for their diversity and used historically for serotyping, strains that have been adapted for laboratory use, and isolates from previously described E. faecalis infection outbreaks. This collection also includes isolates first characterized as having novel plasmids, virulence traits, antibiotic resistances, and pathogenicity island (PAI) components. We evaluated variation in factors contributing to pathogenicity, including toxin production, antibiotic resistance, polymorphism in the capsule (cps) operon, pathogenicity island (PAI) gene content, and other accessory factors. This information was correlated with multi-locus sequence typing (MLST) data, which was used to define genetic lineages. Our findings show that virulence and antibiotic resistance traits can be found within many diverse lineages of E. faecalis. However, lineages have emerged that have caused infection outbreaks globally, in which several new antibiotic resistances have entered the species, and in which virulence traits have converged. Comparing genomic hybridization profiles, using a microarray, of strains identified by MLST as spanning the diversity of the species, allowed us to identify the core E. faecalis genome as consisting of an estimated 2057 unique genes