American journal of infection control · 2012
Assessing risk of health care-acquired Legionnaires' disease from environmental sampling: the limits of using a strict percent positivity approach.
Оценочное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Allen Joseph G, Myatt Theodore A, Macintosh David L, Ludwig Jerry F, Minegishi Taeko, Stewart James H, Connors Bryan F, Grant Michael P, McCarthy John F
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Elevated percent positivity (≥30%) of Legionella in hospital domestic water systems has been suggested as a metric for assessing the risk of health care-acquired Legionnaires' disease (LD).
METHODS: We examined the validity of this metric by analyzing data from peer-reviewed studies containing reports of Legionella prevalence in hospital water (ie, percent positivity) and temporally matched reports of patients with health care-acquired LD.
RESULTS: Our literature review identified 31 peer-reviewed publications reporting matched data. We abstracted a total of 206 data points, representing 119 hospitals, from these articles. We determined that the proposed 30% positivity metric has 59% sensitivity and 74% specificity (ie, a 41% false-negative rate and a 26% false-positive rate). These notable error rates could have significant implications, given that we identified 16 peer-reviewed articles and 6 government guidance documents that referenced the 30% positivity metric as a risk assessment tool.
CONCLUSIONS: Environmental sampling of hospital water distribution systems for Legionella can be an important component of risk management for LD. However, the possible consequence of using a percent positivity metric with low sensitivity and specificity is that many hospitals might fail to mitigate when a true risk is present, or might unnecessarily allocate limited resources to deal with a negligible risk.
METHODS: We examined the validity of this metric by analyzing data from peer-reviewed studies containing reports of Legionella prevalence in hospital water (ie, percent positivity) and temporally matched reports of patients with health care-acquired LD.
RESULTS: Our literature review identified 31 peer-reviewed publications reporting matched data. We abstracted a total of 206 data points, representing 119 hospitals, from these articles. We determined that the proposed 30% positivity metric has 59% sensitivity and 74% specificity (ie, a 41% false-negative rate and a 26% false-positive rate). These notable error rates could have significant implications, given that we identified 16 peer-reviewed articles and 6 government guidance documents that referenced the 30% positivity metric as a risk assessment tool.
CONCLUSIONS: Environmental sampling of hospital water distribution systems for Legionella can be an important component of risk management for LD. However, the possible consequence of using a percent positivity metric with low sensitivity and specificity is that many hospitals might fail to mitigate when a true risk is present, or might unnecessarily allocate limited resources to deal with a negligible risk.