Try my Google Co-op search engine to search authoritative health and geriatric/gerontology sites on the WWW

Friday, May 10, 2013

Article of Interest: Infection Control in Long-Term Care: a systematic review of randomized and nonrandomized trials

Uchida, M. et. al. (2013). Infection Control in Long-Term Care: a systematic review of randomized and nonrandomized trials. Journal of American Geriatrics Society 61(4), 602-14.

This systematic review looks at the nonpharmacological intervention strategies available for infection control in Long-Term Care.  According to the authors, there are gaps and inconsistencies in the interventions currently used and/or available.

This article is not open access.  To review the abstract, please see below.  University of Manitoba library card holders can click here to link to the article.  To see the PubMed entry, please click here.


The purpose of this systematic review was to critically review and synthesize current evidence and the methodological quality of nonpharmacological infection-prevention interventions in long-term care (LTC) facilities for older adults. Two reviewers searched three electronic databases for studies published over the last decade assessing randomized and nonrandomized trials designed to reduce infections in older adults in which primary outcomes were infection rates and reductions of risk factors related to infections. To establish clarity and standardized reporting of findings, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist was used. Data extracted included study design, sample size, type and duration of interventions, outcome measures reported, and findings. Two reviewers independently assessed study quality using a validated quality assessment tool. Twenty-four articles met inclusion criteria; the majority were randomized control trials (67%) in which the primary purpose was to reduce pneumonia (66%). Thirteen (54%) studies reported statistically significant results in favor of interventions on at least one of their outcome measures. The methodological clarity of available evidence was limited, placing them at potential risk of bias. Gaps and inconsistencies surrounding interventions in LTC are evident. Future interventional studies need to enhance methodological rigor using clearly defined outcome measures and standardized reporting of findings.

No comments: