-
Environmental Health Insights 2024Nosocomial pathogens are known to exacerbate morbidity and mortality in contemporary critical healthcare. Hospital fomites, which include inanimate surfaces, have been... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Nosocomial pathogens are known to exacerbate morbidity and mortality in contemporary critical healthcare. Hospital fomites, which include inanimate surfaces, have been identified as "breeding grounds" for pathogens that cause nosocomial infections. This systematic review aimed to deliver incisive insights on nosocomial pathogens in intensive care units (ICUs) and the role of fomites as potential reservoirs for their transmission.
METHOD
An extensive exploration of electronic databases, including PubMed and Scopus, from 1990 to 2023, was carried out between 25 and 29 May 2023, per standard PRISMA guidelines. Information were extracted from articles that reported on fomites in the ICU. Studies that did not quantitatively report the fomite contamination, and those that exclusively took samples from patients in the ICU were excluded from the analysis.
RESULTS
About 40% of the total samples collected on fomites from all the studies yielded microbial growth, with species of being the most predominant. Other prevalent microbes were , , , spp., sp., and sp. The neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) had the highest proportion of contaminated fomites. Among known fomites, the sphygmomanometer exhibited a 100% detection rate of nosocomial pathogens. This included , , coagulase-negative (CoNS), , and Multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria, such as methicillin-resistant (MRSA), vancomycin-resistant (VRE), extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)-producing , and MDR were commonly isolated on fomites in the ICUs.
CONCLUSION
Many fomites that are readily used in patient care in the ICU harbour nosocomial pathogens. The most common fomite appeared to be mobile phones, sphygmomanometers, and stethoscopes, with being the most common contaminant. Consequently, the need for rigorous disinfection and sterilization protocols on fomites in the ICU cannot be overemphasized. Additionally, heightened awareness on the subject among health professionals is crucial to mitigating the risk and burden of nosocomial infections caused by drug-resistant bacteria.
PubMed: 38828046
DOI: 10.1177/11786302241243239 -
JMIR MHealth and UHealth May 2022In the era of digital health information technology, there has been a proliferation of devices that collect patient-generated health data (PGHD), including consumer... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
In the era of digital health information technology, there has been a proliferation of devices that collect patient-generated health data (PGHD), including consumer blood pressure (BP) monitors. Despite their widespread use, it remains unclear whether such devices can improve health outcomes.
OBJECTIVE
We performed a systematic review of the literature on consumer BP monitors that collect PGHD for managing hypertension to summarize their clinical impact on health and surrogate outcomes. We focused particularly on studies designed to measure the specific effect of using a BP monitor independent of cointerventions. We have also summarized the process and consumer experience outcomes.
METHODS
An information specialist searched PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase for controlled studies on consumer BP monitors published up to May 12, 2020. We assessed the risk of bias using an adapted 9-item appraisal tool and performed a narrative synthesis of the results.
RESULTS
We identified 41 different types of BP monitors used in 49 studies included for review. Device engineers judged that 38 (92%) of those devices were similar to the currently available consumer BP monitors. The median sample size was 222 (IQR 101-416) participants, and the median length of follow-up was 6 (IQR 3-12) months. Of the included studies, 18 (36%) were designed to isolate the clinical effects of BP monitors; 6 of the 18 (33%) studies evaluated health outcomes (eg, mortality, hospitalizations, and quality of life), and data on those outcomes were unclear. The lack of clarity was due to low event rates, short follow-up duration, and risk of bias. All 18 studies that isolated the effect of BP monitors measured both systolic and diastolic BP and generally demonstrated a decrease of 2 to 4 mm Hg in systolic BP and 1 to 3 mm Hg in diastolic BP compared with non-BP monitor groups. Adherence to using consumer BP monitors ranged from 38% to 89%, and ease of use and satisfaction ratings were generally high. Adverse events were infrequent, but there were a few technical problems with devices (eg, incorrect device alerts).
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, BP monitors offer small benefits in terms of BP reduction; however, the health impact of these devices continues to remain unclear. Future studies are needed to examine the effectiveness of BP monitors that transmit data to health care providers. Additional data from implementation studies may help determine which components are critical for sustained BP improvement, which in turn may improve prescription decisions by clinicians and coverage decisions by policy makers.
Topics: Blood Pressure; Blood Pressure Monitors; Humans; Hypertension; Quality of Life; Sphygmomanometers
PubMed: 35499862
DOI: 10.2196/33261 -
Scientific Reports Mar 2022This study aims to systematically review the diagnostic accuracy of a digital blood pressure measurement device compared to the gold standard mercury sphygmomanometer in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
This study aims to systematically review the diagnostic accuracy of a digital blood pressure measurement device compared to the gold standard mercury sphygmomanometer in published studies. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Cochrane, EBSCO, EMBASE and Google Scholar host databases using the specific search strategy and filters from 1st January 2000 to 3rd April 2021. We included studies reporting data on the sensitivity or specificity of blood pressure measured by digital devices and mercury sphygmomanometer used as the reference standard. Studies conducted among children, special populations, and specific disease groups were excluded. We considered published manuscripts in the English language only. The risk of bias and applicability concerns were assessed based on the author's judgment using the QUADAS2 manual measurement evaluation tool. Based on the screening, four studies were included in the final analysis. Sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and 95% confidence interval were estimated. The digital blood pressure monitoring has a moderate level of accuracy and the device can correctly distinguish hypertension with a pooled estimate sensitivity of 65.7% and specificity of 95.9%. After removing one study, which had very low sensitivity and very high specificity, the pooled sensitivity estimate was 79%, and the specificity was 91%. The meta-analysis of DOR suggests that the digital blood pressure monitor had moderate accuracy with a mercury sphygmomanometer. This will provide the clinician and patients with accurate information on blood pressure with which diagnostic and treatment decisions could be made.
Topics: Blood Pressure; Blood Pressure Determination; Child; Humans; Mercury; Sensitivity and Specificity; Sphygmomanometers
PubMed: 35233077
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-07315-z -
The Journal of Family Practice May 2021Obtain greater accuracy in blood pressure measurement with an automated office device. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Obtain greater accuracy in blood pressure measurement with an automated office device.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Automation; Blood Pressure Determination; Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory; Female; Humans; Hypertension; Male; Middle Aged; Sphygmomanometers; United States
PubMed: 34339363
DOI: 10.12788/jfp.0188 -
JAMA Pediatrics Dec 2019Reliable estimates of the prevalence of childhood hypertension serve as the basis for adequate prevention and treatment. However, the prevalence of childhood... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Reliable estimates of the prevalence of childhood hypertension serve as the basis for adequate prevention and treatment. However, the prevalence of childhood hypertension has rarely been synthesized at the global level.
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the prevalence of hypertension in the general pediatric population.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, and Global Health Library were searched from inception until June 2018, using search terms related to hypertension (hypertension OR high blood pressure OR elevated blood pressure), children (children OR adolescents), and prevalence (prevalence OR epidemiology).
STUDY SELECTION
Studies that were conducted in the general pediatric population and quantified the prevalence of childhood hypertension were eligible. Included studies had blood pressure measurements from at least 3 separate occasions.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two authors independently extracted data. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to derive the pooled prevalence. Variations in the prevalence estimates in different subgroups, including age group, sex, setting, device, investigation period, BMI group, World Health Organization region and World Bank region, were examined by subgroup meta-analysis. Meta-regression was used to establish the age-specific prevalence of childhood hypertension and to assess its secular trend.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Prevalence of childhood hypertension overall and by subgroup.
RESULTS
A total of 47 articles were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence was 4.00% (95% CI, 3.29%-4.78%) for hypertension, 9.67% (95% CI, 7.26%-12.38%) for prehypertension, 4.00% (95% CI, 2.10%-6.48%) for stage 1 hypertension, and 0.95% (95% CI, 0.48%-1.57%) for stage 2 hypertension in children 19 years and younger. In subgroup meta-analyses, the prevalence of childhood hypertension was higher when measured by aneroid sphygmomanometer (7.23% vs 4.59% by mercury sphygmomanometer vs 2.94% by oscillometric sphygmomanometer) and among overweight and obese children (15.27% and 4.99% vs 1.90% among normal-weight children). A trend of increasing prevalence of childhood hypertension was observed during the past 2 decades, with a relative increasing rate of 75% to 79% from 2000 to 2015. In 2015, the prevalence of hypertension ranged from 4.32% (95% CI, 2.79%-6.63%) among children aged 6 years to 3.28% (95% CI, 2.25%-4.77%) among those aged 19 years and peaked at 7.89% (95% CI, 5.75%-10.75%) among those aged 14 years.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This study provides a global estimation of childhood hypertension prevalence based on blood pressure measurements in at least 3 separate visits. More high-quality epidemiologic investigations on childhood hypertension are still needed.
Topics: Child; Global Health; Humans; Hypertension; Prevalence
PubMed: 31589252
DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.3310