Archive for May 27, 2017

JAMA Surgery May 3, 2017

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guideline for the prevention of surgical site infection, 2017

Berríos-Torres SI et al.


The human and financial costs of treating surgical site infections (SSIs) are increasing. The number of surgical procedures performed in the United States continues to rise, and surgical patients are initially seen with increasingly complex comorbidities. It is estimated that approximately half of SSIs are deemed preventable using evidence-based strategies.


To provide new and updated evidence-based recommendations for the prevention of SSI.

Evidence Review 

A targeted systematic review of the literature was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library from 1998 through April 2014. A modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the quality of evidence and the strength of the resulting recommendation and to provide explicit links between them. Of 5487 potentially relevant studies identified in literature searches, 5759 titles and abstracts were screened, and 896 underwent full-text review by 2 independent reviewers. After exclusions, 170 studies were extracted into evidence, evaluated, and categorized.


Before surgery, patients should shower or bathe (full body) with soap (antimicrobial or nonantimicrobial) or an antiseptic agent on at least the night before the operative day. Antimicrobial prophylaxis should be administered only when indicated based on published clinical practice guidelines and timed such that a bactericidal concentration of the agents is established in the serum and tissues when the incision is made. In cesarean section procedures, antimicrobial prophylaxis should be administered before skin incision. Skin preparation in the operating room should be performed using an alcohol-based agent unless contraindicated. For clean and clean-contaminated procedures, additional prophylactic antimicrobial agent doses should not be administered after the surgical incision is closed in the operating room, even in the presence of a drain. Topical antimicrobial agents should not be applied to the surgical incision. During surgery, glycemic control should be implemented using blood glucose target levels less than 200 mg/dL, and normothermia should be maintained in all patients. Increased fraction of inspired oxygen should be administered during surgery and after extubation in the immediate postoperative period for patients with normal pulmonary function undergoing general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation. Transfusion of blood products should not be withheld from surgical patients as a means to prevent SSI.

Conclusions and Relevance

This guideline is intended to provide new and updated evidence-based recommendations for the prevention of SSI and should be incorporated into comprehensive surgical quality improvement programs to improve patient safety.





May 27, 2017 at 10:42 am

An evaluation of automated chest radiography reading software for tuberculosis screening among public- and private-sector patients

Eur Respir J ERJ May 2017 V.49 N.5

Md Toufiq Rahman, Andrew J. Codlin, Md Mahfuzur Rahman, Ayenun Nahar, Mehdi Reja, Tariqul Islam, Zhi Zhen Qin, Md Abdus Shakur Khan, Sayera Banu, and Jacob Creswell

Computer-aided reading (CAR) of medical images is becoming increasingly common, but few studies exist for CAR in tuberculosis (TB). We designed a prospective study evaluating CAR for chest radiography (CXR) as a triage tool before Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert).

Consecutively enrolled adults in Dhaka, Bangladesh, with TB symptoms received CXR and Xpert. Each image was scored by CAR and graded by a radiologist. We compared CAR with the radiologist for sensitivity and specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and calculated the potential Xpert tests saved.

A total of 18 036 individuals were enrolled. TB prevalence by Xpert was 15%. The radiologist graded 49% of CXRs as abnormal, resulting in 91% sensitivity and 58% specificity. At a similar sensitivity, CAR had a lower specificity (41%), saving fewer (36%) Xpert tests. The AUC for CAR was 0.74 (95% CI 0.73–0.75). CAR performance declined with increasing age. The radiologist grading was superior across all sub-analyses.

Using CAR can save Xpert tests, but the radiologist’s specificity was superior. Differentiated CAR thresholds may be required for different populations. Access to, and costs of, human readers must be considered when deciding to use CAR software. More studies are needed to evaluate CAR using different screening approaches.



May 27, 2017 at 8:36 am


May 2017
« Apr   Jun »

Posts by Month

Posts by Category