医院内病原体在于物品表面能够存活多久？系统综述
BMC Infect Dis. 2006 Aug 16;6:130.LinksHow long do nosocomial pathogens persist on inanimate surfaces? A systematic review.
医院内病原体在于物品表面能够存活多久？系统综述
Kramer A, Schwebke I, Kampf G.
Institut für Hygiene und Umweltmedizin, Ernst-Moritz-Arndt Universität, Greifswald, Germany. kramer@uni-greifswald.de
BACKGROUND: Inanimate surfaces have often been described as the source for outbreaks of nosocomial infections. （物品表面经常被描述为医院感染爆发的源头。）The aim of this review is to summarize data on the persistence of different nosocomial pathogens on inanimate surfaces.（本综述目的在于总结不同病原体在物品表面存活的时间数据。） METHODS: The literature was systematically reviewed in MedLine without language restrictions.（方法：用Mediline系统搜集文献综述，不考虑语言限制。） In addition, cited articles in a report were assessed and standard textbooks on the topic were reviewed. （另外，也评估了报告中引用的文献和教科书中关于此类问题的表述。）All reports with experimental evidence on the duration of persistence of a nosocomial pathogen on any type of surface were included. （包括所有关于医院内病原体在不同物品表面存活时间长短的实验证据。）RESULTS: Most gram-positive bacteria, such as Enterococcus spp. (including VRE), Staphylococcus aureus (including MRSA), or Streptococcus pyogenes, survive for months on dry surfaces.（结果：大多数革兰阳性细菌，如肠球菌（包括VRE），金黄色葡萄球菌（包括MRSA），和化脓链球菌能够在干燥表面存活长达数月时间。） Many gram-negative species, such as Acinetobacter spp., Escherichia coli, Klebsiella spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Serratia marcescens, or Shigella spp., can also survive for months.（许多革兰阴性细菌，如不动杆菌，大肠埃希菌，克雷柏菌，铜绿假单胞菌，粘质沙雷氏菌，或志贺氏菌也能够存货数月。） A few others, such as Bordetella pertussis, Haemophilus influenzae, Proteus vulgaris, or Vibrio cholerae, however, persist only for days. （但是，其他菌，如百日咳杆菌，流感嗜血杆菌，普通变形杆菌，霍乱弧菌只能存活数天时间。）Mycobacteria, including Mycobacterium tuberculosis, and spore-forming bacteria, including Clostridium difficile, can also survive for months on surfaces.（分支杆菌，包括结核分支杆菌，和孢子形成俊，包括艰难梭菌，也能存活数月时间。） Candida albicans as the most important nosocomial fungal pathogen can survive up to 4 months on surfaces. （白色念珠菌是最重要的医院内致病真菌，能够存活于物品表面长达4个月时间。）Persistence of other yeasts, such as Torulopsis glabrata, was described to be similar (5 months) or shorter (Candida parapsilosis, 14 days). （其他酵母菌，如光滑假丝酵母菌能存活5个月，近平滑假丝酵母菌时间短些，大概14天。）Most viruses from the respiratory tract, such as corona, coxsackie, influenza, SARS or rhino virus, can persist on surfaces for a few days. （大多数呼吸道病毒，如冠状病毒，科萨奇病毒，流感病毒，SARS病毒，鼻病毒，能存活数天。）Viruses from the gastrointestinal tract, such as astrovirus, HAV, polio- or rota virus, persist for approximately 2 months.（胃肠道病毒，如星状病毒，甲肝病毒，轮状病毒，大概可以存活2个月。） Blood-borne viruses, such as HBV or HIV, can persist for more than one week. （血源性病毒，如乙肝病毒，艾滋病毒，能存活超过一周。）Herpes viruses, such as CMV or HSV type 1 and 2, have been shown to persist from only a few hours up to 7 days. （疱疹病毒，如巨细胞病毒或单纯疱疹病毒1型和2型，已被证明仅能存活数小时至7天。）CONCLUSION: The most common nosocomial pathogens may well survive or persist on surfaces for months and can thereby be a continuous source of transmission if no regular preventive surface disinfection is performed.（结论：最常见的医院内病原体都能够很好的存活于物品表面长达数月，因此如果没有采取适当的常规性预防性物品消毒措施，这些病原体可以成为传播的持续传染源。）
[ 本帖最后由 David 于 2008-11-4 14:48 编辑 ]
回复 #1 David 的帖子
systematic review是否译为“系统评价”更贴切？ 可以，但这篇文章作者不是着重评价文献的质量和证据的强弱，而是总结已有文献的资料和数据，因此翻译为系统综述更贴切。stematic review若翻为系统评价，那就是在比较分析文献政局的强弱。不同的systematic review有不同的翻译，个人理解。
回复 #3 David 的帖子
不同的systematic review有不同的翻译？！文献综述没有别的表达方式？一样的表达差之千里结果:L ，看来以后不能看见systematic review就认为是系统评价了。Wiki关于systematic review的解释
A systematic review is a literature review focused on a single question which tries to identify, appraise, select and synthesize all high quality research evidence relevant to that question. Systematic reviews are generally regarded as the highest level of medical evidence by evidence-based medicine professionals. An understanding of systematic reviews and how to implement them in practice is becoming mandatory for all professionals involved in the delivery of health care.Characteristics
A systematic review is a summary of research (often in the biomedical or healthcare context) that uses explicit methods to perform a thorough literature search and critical appraisal of individual studies to identify the valid and applicable evidence. It often, but not always, uses appropriate techniques (meta-analysis) to combine these valid studies, or at least uses grading of the levels of evidence depending on the methodology used. A systematic review uses an objective and transparent approach for research synthesis, with the aim of minimising bias. While many systematic reviews are based on an explicit quantitative meta-analysis of available data, there are also qualitative reviews which nonetheless adhere to the standards for gathering, analyzing and reporting evidence. The EPPI-Centre have been influential in developing methods for combining both qualitative and quantitative research in systematic reviews. Other recent developments include realist reviews and the meta-narrative approach.
Cochrane collaboration
Many healthcare journals now publish systematic reviews, but the best-known source is the Cochrane Collaboration, a group of over 6,000 specialists in health care who systematically review randomised trials of the effects of treatments and, when appropriate, the results of other research. Cochrane reviews are published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews section of the Cochrane Library, which to date (February 2007) contains 2,893 complete reviews and 1,646 protocols.
The Cochrane Group provides a handbook for systematic reviewers of interventions, where they suggest that each systematic review should contain the following main sections:
Background
Objectives
Methods of the review
Results
Conclusion and discussion
There are seven steps for preparing and maintaining a systematic review, as outlined in the Cochrane Handbook:
Formulating a problem
Locating and selecting studies
Critical appraisal of studies
Collecting data
Analyzing and presenting results
Interpreting results
Improving and updating reviews
Strengths and weaknesses
While systematic reviews are regarded as the strongest form of medical evidence, a review of 300 studies found that not all systematic reviews were equally reliable, and that their reporting could be improved by a universally agreed upon set of standards and guidelines.
A further study by the same group found that of 100 guidelines reviewed, 4% required updating within a year, and 11% after 2 years; this figure was higher in rapidly-changing fields of medicine, especially cardiovascular medicine. 7% of systematic reviews needed updating at the time of publication. A 2003 study suggested that extending searches beyond major databases, perhaps into gray literature, would increase the effectiveness of reviews.
References
^ (Thomas J, Harden A, Oakley A, Oliver S, Sutcliffe K, Rees R. Brunton G. Kavanagh J (2004) Integrating qualitative research with trials in systematic reviews: an example from public health. British Medical Journal 328:1010-1012)
^ Fraser MacFarlane; Olivia Kyriakidou; Bate, Paul; Richard Peacock; Greenhalgh, Trisha (2005). Diffusion of Innovations in Health Service Organisations: A Systematic Literature (Studies in Urban and Social Change). Blackwell Publishing Professional. ISBN 0-7279-1869-9.
^ Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG (2007). "Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews". PLoS Med. 4 (3): e78. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078. PMID 17388659.
^ a b Shojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, Ji J, Doucette S, Moher D (2007). "How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis". Ann. Intern. Med. 147 (4): 224–33. PMID 17638714.
^ Savoie I, Helmer D, Green CJ, Kazanjian A (2003). "Beyond Medline: reducing bias through extended systematic review search". Int J Technol Assess Health Care 19 (1): 168–78. doi:10.1017/S0266462303000163. PMID 12701949.
回复 #4 楚楚 的帖子
很显然，这篇systematic review只不过是qualitative review（定性分析）而已，因此翻译为系统综述比较合适。 下来看看 systematic review {:1_8:}{:1_7:}{:1_7:}{:1_7:}3q 3q{:1_13:}{:1_10:}{:1_14:} {:1_9:}{:1_9:}{:1_9:}{:1_10:}{:1_10:}{:1_10:} 这种文章对于确定暴露时间非常有用。 这个对于解释一些原因不明的聚集性病例非常好 谢谢老师，路过学习了！
页:
[1]