BACKGROUND: In the recent era, antimicrobial resistance has been identified as one of the most important threats to human health worldwide. The rapid emergence of antibiotic-resistant pathogens (ABRP) in the modern intensive care unit (ICU) also represents a \"nightmare scenario\" with unknown clinical consequences. In the Greek ICU, in particular, gram negative ABRPs are now considered endemic. However, the possible longitudinal impact of ABRPs on long-term outcomes of ICU patients has not yet been determined.
METHODS: In this two-year (January 2014-December 2015) single-centre observational longitudinal study, 351 non-neurocritical ICU patients ≥ 18 year-old were enrolled. Patients\' demographic, clinical and outcome data were prospectively collected. Quality-adjusted life years (QALY) were calculated at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months after ICU admission.
RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients developed infections due to ABRP (ABRP group), 57 due to non-ABRP (non-ABRP group), and 236 demonstrated no infection (no-infection group) while in ICU. Multiple regression analysis revealed that multiple organ dysfunction syndrome score (OR: 0.676, 95%CI 0.584-0.782; P < 0.001) and continuous renal replacement therapy (OR: 4.453, 95%CI 1.805-10.982; P = 0.001) were the only independent determinants for ABRP infections in ICU. Intra-ICU, 90-day and 2-year mortality was 27.9%, 52.4% and 61.5%, respectively. Compared to the non-ABRP and no-infection group, the ABRP group demonstrated increased intra-ICU, 90-day and 2-year mortality (P ≤ 0.022), worse 2-year survival rates in ICU patients overall and ICU survivor subset (Log-rank test, P ≤ 0.046), and poorer progress over time in 2-year QALY kinetics in ICU population overall, ICU survivor and 2-year survivor subgroups (P ≤ 0.013). ABRP group was further divided into multi-drug and extensively-drug resistant subgroups [MDR (n = 34) / XDR (n = 24), respectively]. Compared to MDR subgroup, the XDR subgroup demonstrated increased ICU, 90-day and 2-year mortality (P ≤ 0.031), but similar 90-day and 2-year QALYs (P ≥ 0.549). ABRP infections overall (HR = 1.778, 95% CI 1.166-2.711; P = 0.008), as well as XDR [HR = 1.889, 95% CI 1.075-3.320; P = 0.027) but not MDR pathogens, were independently associated with 2-year mortality, after adjusting for several covariates of critical illness.
CONCLUSIONS: The present study may suggest a significant association between ABRP (especially XDR) infections in ICU and increased mortality and inability rates for a prolonged period post-discharge that requires further attention in larger-scale studies.

Before implementing healthcare interventions, clinicians need to weigh the beneficial and adverse effects of interventions. However, a large body of evidence has demonstrated that seeking and reporting of adverse effects is suboptimal in clinical trials and in systematic reviews of interventions. This cross-sectional study will investigate the status of this problem in orthodontics. This study will assess whether adverse effects were sought and whether findings related to adverse effects were reported in systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions in the five leading orthodontic journals and in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
Systematic reviews of clinical orthodontic interventions published between 01 August 2009 and 31 July 2019 in the five leading orthodontic journals and in the Cochrane Database will be included. Empty reviews will be excluded. The reporting of outcomes on adverse effects will not determine eligibility, i.e., reviews will not be excluded, because they did not report usable data. Study selection and data extraction will be conducted independently by two authors. Our primary outcome will be the prevalence of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions that sought any findings related to adverse effects in the included studies. Additional prevalence statistics will be calculated on a series of items related to seeking of adverse effects in the eligible reviews. All statistics will be calculated for (1) all journals together, (2) the group of five orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews separately, and (3) each individual journal separately. Chi-square tests of independence will be used to compare these groups.
This study will assess whether adverse effects were sought in systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions. This knowledge is important, because reviews that present an incomplete picture on adverse effects can have unfavorable consequences for the end-users. Also not reporting that no adverse effects were assessed in eligible studies included in a systematic review can mislead pertinent stakeholders. Our findings could have policy implications for making judgments on accepting or rejecting an intervention systematic review for publication, for example, by directing editors and peer-reviewers to adopt the various items on adverse effects defined in the MECIR standards and in the PRISMA harm checklist.