OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the limits of comparison of national prevalence rates of nosocomial infections. DESIGN AND SETTING: Critical analysis of prevalence rates and methods of the Nosocomial Infections in Germany (NIDEP) study and other prevalence surveys with particular attention to the selection of patients, the qualification and training of the investigators, and the methods of identifying nosocomial infections. RESULTS: The lowest prevalence rate was found in Germany (3.5%), the highest in Belgium (9.3%). These differences may not be accurate, because variations in methods allow for differing explanations. CONCLUSIONS: Because of numerous methodological factors, comparison of infection rates between countries should be avoided. In contrast to other prevalence studies, the methodology of the German-NIDEP study permits registration of only certain infections, which is the main reason for the low rate.
OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the limits of comparison of national prevalence rates of nosocomial infections. DESIGN AND SETTING: Critical analysis of prevalence rates and methods of the Nosocomial Infections in Germany (NIDEP) study and other prevalence surveys with particular attention to the selection of patients, the qualification and training of the investigators, and the methods of identifying nosocomial infections. RESULTS: The lowest prevalence rate was found in Germany (3.5%), the highest in Belgium (9.3%). These differences may not be accurate, because variations in methods allow for differing explanations. CONCLUSIONS: Because of numerous methodological factors, comparison of infection rates between countries should be avoided. In contrast to other prevalence studies, the methodology of the German-NIDEP study permits registration of only certain infections, which is the main reason for the low rate.
Authors: Michael Behnke; Sonja Hansen; Rasmus Leistner; Luis Alberto Peña Diaz; Alexander Gropmann; Dorit Sohr; Petra Gastmeier; Brar Piening Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2013-09-20 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Agnes Hajdu; Hanne M Eriksen; Nina K Sorknes; Siri H Hauge; Hege L Loewer; Bjørn G Iversen; Preben Aavitsland Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2011-12-13 Impact factor: 3.295