Yen 2006.

Methods	Prospective cohort study performed in a 67‐bed military hospital in Taiwan to assess the effectiveness of the integrated infection control strategy by comparing the rate of SARS transmission in HCWs in the study hospital with that in other major hospitals in Taiwan without the integrated infection control strategy
Participants	Healthcare workers (HCWs) of a 67‐bed military hospital, that was the study hospital. Eighty‐six hospitals were used as comparison hospitals with a total of 746 negative pressure isolation rooms (NPIR beds), caring for SARS patients without the integrated infection control strategy. All HCWs in this group were trained before the SARS epidemic in Taiwan through a national regulation for a standard nosocomial infection control programme, with infectious diseases physicians/infection control nurses available in each regional and tertiary hospital
Interventions	Integrated infection control strategy (consisting of patient traffic into hospital, zone of risks and extensive installation of alcohol dispensers for glove‐on hand‐rubbing) versus standard nosocomial infection control programme
Outcomes	Serological evidence: yes Effectiveness: SARS (definition?) Safety: N/A
Notes	Risk of bias: high The authors conclude that the integrated infection control strategy appeared to be effective in reducing the incidence of HCWs contracting SARS. Point estimates? 95% CIs. The advantages included rapid implementation without negative pressure isolation rooms, flexibility to transfer patients, and re‐enforcement for HCWs to comply with infection control procedures, especially handwashing. The efficacy and low cost are major advantages, especially in countries with large populations at risk and fewer economic resources
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	N/A
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	N/A
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	N/A
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	N/A
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	N/A