For bacterial typing to be useful, the development, validation and appropriate application of typing methods must follow unified criteria. Over a decade ago, ESGEM, the ESCMID (Europen Society for Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases) Study Group on Epidemiological Markers, produced guidelines for optimal use and quality assessment of the then most frequently used typing procedures. We present here an update of these guidelines, taking into account the spectacular increase in the number and quality of typing methods made available over the past decade. Newer and older, phenotypic and genotypic methods for typing of all clinically relevant bacterial species are described according to their principles, advantages and disadvantages. Criteria for their evaluation and application and the interpretation of their results are proposed. Finally, the issues of reporting, standardisation, quality assessment and international networks are discussed. It must be emphasised that typing results can never stand alone and need to be interpreted in the context of all available epidemiological, clinical and demographical data relating to the infectious disease under investigation. A strategic effort on the part of all workers in the field is thus mandatory to combat emerging infectious diseases, as is financial support from national and international granting bodies and health authorities.

No abstract

Objective To evaluate the evidence for the effectiveness of isolation measures in reducing the incidence of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonisation and infection in hospital inpatients.

Molecular data are now widely used in epidemiological studies to investigate the transmission, distribution, biology, and diversity of pathogens. Our objective was to establish recommendations to support good scientific reporting of molecular epidemiological studies to encourage authors to consider specific threats to valid inference. The statement Strengthening the Reporting of Molecular Epidemiology for Infectious Diseases (STROME-ID) builds upon the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) initiative. The STROME-ID statement was developed by a working group of epidemiologists, statisticians, bioinformaticians, virologists, and microbiologists with expertise in control of infection and communicable diseases. The statement focuses on issues relating to the reporting of epidemiological studies of infectious diseases using molecular data that were not addressed by STROBE. STROME-ID addresses terminology, measures of genetic diversity within pathogen populations, laboratory methods, sample collection, use of molecular markers, molecular clocks, timeframe, multiple-strain infections, non-independence of infectious-disease data, missing data, ascertainment bias, consistency between molecular and epidemiological data, and ethical considerations with respect to infectious-disease research. In total, 20 items were added to the 22 item STROBE checklist. When used, the STROME-ID recommendations should advance the quality and transparency of scientific reporting, with clear benefits for evidence reviews and health-policy decision making.

No abstract