Table I.

Summary of key characteristics of publications included in the systematic review

Article	Study design	Setting and population	Intervention and comparison	Primary outcome	Time horizon (dates)	Key conclusions
Bearman et al.30	One group pretest–post-test (two intervention phases)	Medical ICU at academic hospital (USA)	–Contact isolation (phase 1) –Universal gloving (phase 2)	Prevalence and incidence of MRSA or VRE colonization or infection	–Phase 1: three months –Phase 2: three months (dates not stated)	No differences in the proportion of patients acquiring VRE (14% vs 18%, P = 0.19) or MRSA (5.7% vs 5% P = 0.92) in the two study phases
Bearman et al.29	One group pretest–post-test (two intervention phases)	Surgical ICU at academic hospital (USA)	–Contact isolation (phase 1) –Universal gloving (phase 2)	Prevalence of MRSA or VRE	–Phase 1: six months –Phase 2: six months (September 2008–September 2009)	Compared with contact precautions, universal gloving with emollient-impregnated gloves, no statistically significant change in the rates of device-associated infection, CDI, or patient MDRO acquisition was observed
Cepeda et al.31	Repeated treatment	All inpatients with stay >12 h in three medical–surgical ICUs of two academic hospitals (Great Britain)	–Gowning and gloving, single room isolation (phases 1 and 3) –Gowning and gloving, no single room isolation (phase 2)	Incidence of MRSA colonization or infection	–Phase 1: three months –Phase 2: six months –Phase 3: three months (June 2000 to June 2001)	Risks of acquiring MRSA were similar in the move and non-move phases; combined hazard ratio 0.73 (95% CI: 0.49–1.10), P = 0.94 one-sided and for hospital A and B individually [0.72 (0.44–1.17), P = 0.91 and 0.76 (0.37–1.58), P = 0.77]
Cheng et al.28	One group pretest–post-test with non-equivalent, concurrent control (three phases)	Patients of an ICU in one university-affiliated teaching hospital (Hong Kong)	–Cohorting (phase 1) –Single room isolation and contact precautions (phase 2) –Single room isolation with hand hygiene campaign (phase 3)	‘Changes in the trend or level of incidence density of ICU onset infection due to MRSA’ (p. 3)	–Phase 1: 27 months –Phase 2: 27 months –Phase 3: 35 months (January 2002–June 2009)	No difference in level or trend change of the incidence density of ICU onset infections due to MRSA and ESBL-producing organisms across different phases during the study period
Cohen et al.27	One group pretest–post-test (four intervention phases)	All inpatients of a tertiary care medical centre (Israel)	–Contact precautions (phase 1) –Cohorting patients and staff and roommate screening (phase 2) –Phase 2 plus ICU active surveillance (phase 3) –Phase 3 plus ED active surveillance (phase 4)	CRKP colonization or infection ‘episodes’	–Phase 1: one year –Phase 2: one year –Phase 3: 15 months –Phase 4: seven months (March 2006–March 2009)	Contact precautions alone are not sufficient for controlling an outbreak of CRKP colonization and infection; significant changes in incidence rate corresponding with phases 2 and 3
Gbaguidi-Haore et al.32	Repeated treatment	Academic hospital (France)	–Contact precautions, or cohorting if single room unavailable (phases 1 and 3) –No isolation (phase 2)	Acinetobacter baumannii colonization or infection	–Phase 1: three years –Phase 2: three years –Phase 3: two years (1999–2006)	Implementation of isolation precautions was negatively associated with A. baumannii colonization incidence [RR: 0.50 (95% CI: 0.40–0.64); P < 0.001]

ICU, intensive care unit; MRSA, meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; VRE, vancomycin-resistant enterococci; CDI, Clostridium difficile infection; MDRO, multidrug-resistant organism; CI, confidence interval; EBSL, extended spectrum β-lactamase; CRKP, carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae; ED, emergency department; RR, risk ratio.