Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Effectiveness of infection prevention and contr...

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Effectiveness of infection prevention and control interventions, excluding personal protective equipment, to prevent nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review and call for action

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Effectiveness of infection prevention and control interventions, excluding personal protective equipment, to prevent nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review and call for action. / Jafari, Y.; Yin, M.; Lim, C. et al.
In: Infection Prevention in Practice, Vol. 4, No. 1, 100192, 01.03.2022.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

Jafari, Y, Yin, M, Lim, C, Pople, D, Evans, S, Stimson, J, Pham, TM, Read, JM, Robotham, JV, Cooper, BS, Knight, GM & group, LSHTMCMMIDCOVIDW 2022, 'Effectiveness of infection prevention and control interventions, excluding personal protective equipment, to prevent nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review and call for action', Infection Prevention in Practice, vol. 4, no. 1, 100192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infpip.2021.100192

APA

Jafari, Y., Yin, M., Lim, C., Pople, D., Evans, S., Stimson, J., Pham, T. M., Read, J. M., Robotham, J. V., Cooper, B. S., Knight, G. M., & group, LSHTM. CMMID. COVID. W. (2022). Effectiveness of infection prevention and control interventions, excluding personal protective equipment, to prevent nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review and call for action. Infection Prevention in Practice, 4(1), Article 100192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infpip.2021.100192

Vancouver

Jafari Y, Yin M, Lim C, Pople D, Evans S, Stimson J et al. Effectiveness of infection prevention and control interventions, excluding personal protective equipment, to prevent nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review and call for action. Infection Prevention in Practice. 2022 Mar 1;4(1):100192. Epub 2021 Nov 29. doi: 10.1016/j.infpip.2021.100192

Author

Bibtex

@article{3a884e21f77f4db2976e2c6e5587e126,
title = "Effectiveness of infection prevention and control interventions, excluding personal protective equipment, to prevent nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review and call for action",
abstract = "Many infection prevention and control (IPC) interventions have been adopted by hospitals to limit nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2. The aim of this systematic review is to identify evidence on the effectiveness of these interventions. We conducted a literature search of five databases (OVID MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, COVID-19 Portfolio (pre-print), Web of Science). SWIFT ActiveScreener software was used to screen English titles and abstracts published between 1st January 2020 and 6th April 2021. Intervention studies, defined by Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care, that evaluated IPC interventions with an outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection in either patients or healthcare workers were included. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was excluded as this intervention had been previously reviewed. Risks of bias were assessed using the Cochrane tool for randomised trials (RoB2) and non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I). From 23,156 screened articles, we identified seven articles that met the inclusion criteria, all of which evaluated interventions to prevent infections in healthcare workers and the majority of which were focused on effectiveness of prophylaxes. Due to heterogeneity in interventions, we did not conduct a meta-analysis. All agents used for prophylaxes have little to no evidence of effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infections. We did not find any studies evaluating the effectiveness of interventions including but not limited to screening, isolation and improved ventilation. There is limited evidence from interventional studies, excluding PPE, evaluating IPC measures for SARS-CoV-2. This review calls for urgent action to implement such studies to inform policies to protect our most vulnerable populations and healthcare workers. {\textcopyright} 2021 The Authors",
author = "Y. Jafari and M. Yin and C. Lim and D. Pople and S. Evans and J. Stimson and T.M. Pham and J.M. Read and J.V. Robotham and B.S. Cooper and G.M. Knight and group, {LSHTM CMMID COVID-19 working}",
year = "2022",
month = mar,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.infpip.2021.100192",
language = "English",
volume = "4",
journal = "Infection Prevention in Practice",
issn = "2590-0889",
publisher = "Elsevier Ltd",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effectiveness of infection prevention and control interventions, excluding personal protective equipment, to prevent nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2

T2 - a systematic review and call for action

AU - Jafari, Y.

AU - Yin, M.

AU - Lim, C.

AU - Pople, D.

AU - Evans, S.

AU - Stimson, J.

AU - Pham, T.M.

AU - Read, J.M.

AU - Robotham, J.V.

AU - Cooper, B.S.

AU - Knight, G.M.

AU - group, LSHTM CMMID COVID-19 working

PY - 2022/3/1

Y1 - 2022/3/1

N2 - Many infection prevention and control (IPC) interventions have been adopted by hospitals to limit nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2. The aim of this systematic review is to identify evidence on the effectiveness of these interventions. We conducted a literature search of five databases (OVID MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, COVID-19 Portfolio (pre-print), Web of Science). SWIFT ActiveScreener software was used to screen English titles and abstracts published between 1st January 2020 and 6th April 2021. Intervention studies, defined by Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care, that evaluated IPC interventions with an outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection in either patients or healthcare workers were included. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was excluded as this intervention had been previously reviewed. Risks of bias were assessed using the Cochrane tool for randomised trials (RoB2) and non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I). From 23,156 screened articles, we identified seven articles that met the inclusion criteria, all of which evaluated interventions to prevent infections in healthcare workers and the majority of which were focused on effectiveness of prophylaxes. Due to heterogeneity in interventions, we did not conduct a meta-analysis. All agents used for prophylaxes have little to no evidence of effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infections. We did not find any studies evaluating the effectiveness of interventions including but not limited to screening, isolation and improved ventilation. There is limited evidence from interventional studies, excluding PPE, evaluating IPC measures for SARS-CoV-2. This review calls for urgent action to implement such studies to inform policies to protect our most vulnerable populations and healthcare workers. © 2021 The Authors

AB - Many infection prevention and control (IPC) interventions have been adopted by hospitals to limit nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2. The aim of this systematic review is to identify evidence on the effectiveness of these interventions. We conducted a literature search of five databases (OVID MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, COVID-19 Portfolio (pre-print), Web of Science). SWIFT ActiveScreener software was used to screen English titles and abstracts published between 1st January 2020 and 6th April 2021. Intervention studies, defined by Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care, that evaluated IPC interventions with an outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infection in either patients or healthcare workers were included. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was excluded as this intervention had been previously reviewed. Risks of bias were assessed using the Cochrane tool for randomised trials (RoB2) and non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I). From 23,156 screened articles, we identified seven articles that met the inclusion criteria, all of which evaluated interventions to prevent infections in healthcare workers and the majority of which were focused on effectiveness of prophylaxes. Due to heterogeneity in interventions, we did not conduct a meta-analysis. All agents used for prophylaxes have little to no evidence of effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infections. We did not find any studies evaluating the effectiveness of interventions including but not limited to screening, isolation and improved ventilation. There is limited evidence from interventional studies, excluding PPE, evaluating IPC measures for SARS-CoV-2. This review calls for urgent action to implement such studies to inform policies to protect our most vulnerable populations and healthcare workers. © 2021 The Authors

U2 - 10.1016/j.infpip.2021.100192

DO - 10.1016/j.infpip.2021.100192

M3 - Journal article

VL - 4

JO - Infection Prevention in Practice

JF - Infection Prevention in Practice

SN - 2590-0889

IS - 1

M1 - 100192

ER -