Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Dominik Mertz is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Dominik Mertz.


Clinical Infectious Diseases | 2007

Throat Swabs Are Necessary to Reliably Detect Carriers of Staphylococcus aureus

Dominik Mertz; Reno Frei; Barbara Jaussi; Andreas Tietz; Christine Stebler; Ursula Flückiger; Andreas F. Widmer

The anterior nares are the most important screening site of colonization with Staphylococcus aureus. We screened 2966 individuals for S. aureus carriage with swabs of both nares and throat. A total of 37.1% of persons were nasal carriers, and 12.8% were solely throat carriers. Screening of throat swabs significantly increases the sensitivity of detection among carriers by 25.7%.


BMJ | 2013

Populations at risk for severe or complicated influenza illness: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Dominik Mertz; Tae Hyong Kim; Jennie Johnstone; Po-Po Lam; Stefan P. Kuster; Shaza A. Fadel; Dat Tran; Eduardo Fernández; Neera Bhatnagar; Mark Loeb

Objective To evaluate risk factors for severe outcomes in patients with seasonal and pandemic influenza. Design Systematic review. Study selection Observational studies reporting on risk factor-outcome combinations of interest in participants with influenza. Outcomes included death, ventilator support, admission to hospital, admission to an intensive care unit, pneumonia, and composite outcomes. Data sources Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Global Health, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to March 2011. Risk of bias assessment Newcastle-Ottawa scale to assess the risk of bias. GRADE framework to evaluate the quality of evidence. Results 63 537 articles were identified of which 234 with a total of 610 782 participants met the inclusion criteria. The evidence supporting risk factors for severe outcomes of influenza ranged from being limited to absent. This was particularly relevant for the relative lack of data for non-2009 H1N1 pandemics and for seasonal influenza studies. Limitations in the published literature included lack of power and lack of adjustment for confounders was widespread: adjusted risk estimates were provided for only 5% of risk factor-outcome comparisons in 39 of 260 (15%) studies. The level of evidence was low for “any risk factor” (odds ratio for mortality 2.77, 95% confidence interval 1.90 to 4.05 for pandemic influenza and 2.04, 1.74 to 2.39 for seasonal influenza), obesity (2.74, 1.56 to 4.80 and 30.1, 1.74 to 2.39), cardiovascular diseases (2.92, 1.76 to 4.86 and 1.97, 1.06 to 3.67), and neuromuscular disease (2.68, 1.91 to 3.75 and 3.21, 1.84 to 5.58). The level of evidence was very low for all other risk factors. Some well accepted risk factors such as pregnancy and belonging to an ethnic minority group could not be identified as risk factors. In contrast, women who were less than four weeks post partum had a significantly increased risk of death from pandemic influenza (4.43, 1.24 to 15.81). Conclusion The level of evidence to support risk factors for influenza related complications is low and some well accepted risk factors, including pregnancy and ethnicity, could not be confirmed as risks. Rigorous and adequately powered studies are needed.


BMJ | 2012

Credibility of claims of subgroup effects in randomised controlled trials: systematic review

Xin Sun; Matthias Briel; Jason W. Busse; John J. You; Elie A. Akl; Filip Mejza; Malgorzata M Bala; Dirk Bassler; Dominik Mertz; Natalia Diaz-Granados; Per Olav Vandvik; Germán Málaga; Sadeesh Srinathan; Philipp Dahm; Bradley C. Johnston; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Basil Hassouneh; Stephen D. Walter; Diane Heels-Ansdell; Neera Bhatnagar; Douglas G. Altman; Gordon H. Guyatt

Objective To investigate the credibility of authors’ claims of subgroup effects using a representative sample of recently published randomised controlled trials. Design Systematic review. Data source Core clinical journals, as defined by the National Library of Medicine, in Medline. Study selection Randomised controlled trials published in 2007. Using prespecified criteria, teams of trained reviewers independently judged whether authors claimed subgroup effects and the strength of their claims. Reviewers assessed each of these claims against 10 predefined criteria, developed through a search of existing criteria and a consensus process. Results Of 207 randomised controlled trials reporting subgroup analyses, 64 (31%) made claims for the primary outcome. Of those, 20 were strong claims and 28 claims of a likely effect. Authors included subgroup variables measured at baseline in 60 (94%) trials, used subgroup variable as a stratification factor at randomisation in 13 (20%), clearly prespecified their hypotheses in 26 (41%), correctly prespecified direction in 4 (6%), tested a small number of hypotheses in 28 (44%), carried out a test of interaction that proved statistically significant in 6 (9%), documented replication of a subgroup effect with previous related studies in 21 (33%), identified consistency of a subgroup effect across related outcomes in 19 (30%), and provided a compelling indirect evidence for the effect in 14 (22%). In the 19 trials making more than one claim, only one (5%) checked the independence of the interaction. Of the 64 claims, 54 (84%) met four or fewer of the 10 criteria. For strong claims, more than 50% failed each of the individual criteria, and only three (15%) met more than five criteria. Conclusion Authors often claim subgroup effects in their trial report. However, the credibility of subgroup effects, even when claims are strong, is usually low. Users of the information should treat claims that fail to meet most criteria with scepticism. Trial researchers should report the conduct of subgroup analyses and provide sufficient evidence when claiming a subgroup effect or suggesting a possible effect.


BMC Medical Research Methodology | 2014

Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: comparing reviewers' to authors' assessments

Carson Ka-Lok Lo; Dominik Mertz; Mark Loeb

BackgroundLack of appropriate reporting of methodological details has previously been shown to distort risk of bias assessments in randomized controlled trials. The same might be true for observational studies. The goal of this study was to compare the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) assessment for risk of bias between reviewers and authors of cohort studies included in a published systematic review on risk factors for severe outcomes in patients infected with influenza.MethodsCohort studies included in the systematic review and published between 2008–2011 were included. The corresponding or first authors completed a survey covering all NOS items. Results were compared with the NOS assessment applied by reviewers of the systematic review. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using kappa (K) statistics.ResultsAuthors of 65/182 (36%) studies completed the survey. The overall NOS score was significantly higher (p < 0.001) in the reviewers’ assessment (median = 6; interquartile range [IQR] 6–6) compared with those by authors (median = 5, IQR 4–6). Inter-rater reliability by item ranged from slight (K = 0.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.19, 0.48) to poor (K = −0.06, 95% CI = −0.22, 0.10). Reliability for the overall score was poor (K = −0.004, 95% CI = −0.11, 0.11).ConclusionsDifferences in assessment and low agreement between reviewers and authors suggest the need to contact authors for information not published in studies when applying the NOS in systematic reviews.


JAMA | 2014

Prevalence, Characteristics, and Publication of Discontinued Randomized Trials

Benjamin Kasenda; Erik von Elm; John J. You; Anette Blümle; Yuki Tomonaga; Ramon Saccilotto; Alain Amstutz; Theresa Bengough; Joerg J. Meerpohl; Mihaela Stegert; Kari A.O. Tikkinen; Ignacio Neumann; Alonso Carrasco-Labra; Markus Faulhaber; Sohail Mulla; Dominik Mertz; Elie A. Akl; Dirk Bassler; Jason W. Busse; Ignacio Ferreira-González; Francois Lamontagne; Alain Nordmann; Viktoria Gloy; Heike Raatz; Lorenzo Moja; Rachel Rosenthal; Shanil Ebrahim; Stefan Schandelmaier; Sun Xin; Per Olav Vandvik

IMPORTANCE The discontinuation of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) raises ethical concerns and often wastes scarce research resources. The epidemiology of discontinued RCTs, however, remains unclear. OBJECTIVES To determine the prevalence, characteristics, and publication history of discontinued RCTs and to investigate factors associated with RCT discontinuation due to poor recruitment and with nonpublication. DESIGN AND SETTING Retrospective cohort of RCTs based on archived protocols approved by 6 research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada between 2000 and 2003. We recorded trial characteristics and planned recruitment from included protocols. Last follow-up of RCTs was April 27, 2013. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Completion status, reported reasons for discontinuation, and publication status of RCTs as determined by correspondence with the research ethics committees, literature searches, and investigator surveys. RESULTS After a median follow-up of 11.6 years (range, 8.8-12.6 years), 253 of 1017 included RCTs were discontinued (24.9% [95% CI, 22.3%-27.6%]). Only 96 of 253 discontinuations (37.9% [95% CI, 32.0%-44.3%]) were reported to ethics committees. The most frequent reason for discontinuation was poor recruitment (101/1017; 9.9% [95% CI, 8.2%-12.0%]). In multivariable analysis, industry sponsorship vs investigator sponsorship (8.4% vs 26.5%; odds ratio [OR], 0.25 [95% CI, 0.15-0.43]; P < .001) and a larger planned sample size in increments of 100 (-0.7%; OR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.92-1.00]; P = .04) were associated with lower rates of discontinuation due to poor recruitment. Discontinued trials were more likely to remain unpublished than completed trials (55.1% vs 33.6%; OR, 3.19 [95% CI, 2.29-4.43]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this sample of trials based on RCT protocols from 6 research ethics committees, discontinuation was common, with poor recruitment being the most frequently reported reason. Greater efforts are needed to ensure the reporting of trial discontinuation to research ethics committees and the publication of results of discontinued trials.


JAMA Internal Medicine | 2009

Exclusive Staphylococcus aureus Throat Carriage: At-Risk Populations

Dominik Mertz; Reno Frei; Nadine Periat; Melanie Zimmerli; Manuel Battegay; Ursula Flückiger; Andreas F. Widmer

BACKGROUND Approximately 25% of Staphylococcus aureus carriers have exclusive throat carriage. We aimed to identify the populations at risk for exclusive throat carriage to improve sensitivity to detect carriers. METHODS Four groups underwent nasal and throat screening for S. aureus. Three groups of individuals in the community (n = 2632) with different estimated levels of exposure to the health care system (HCS) were screened, including 1500 healthy blood donors, 498 patients from a school of dental medicine, and 634 health care workers (HCWs) at a trade fair. The fourth group comprised in-hospital patients and HCWs (n = 832) and was considered the group with the highest estimated exposure to the HCS. As a primary outcome, we analyzed risk factors for exclusive throat carriage in exclusive throat carriers vs all nasal carriers. RESULTS Of 3464 individuals screened, 428 (12.4%) had exclusive throat carriage, and 1260 (36.4%) had carriage in the nares only or in the nares and the throat. The most important independent risk factor for exclusive throat carriage was age 30 years or younger (odds ratio, 1.66; P < .001). Exposure to the HCS was a significant protective factor for exclusive throat carriage (odds ratio, 0.67; P = .001). Healthy blood donors were almost twice as likely to have exclusive throat carriage than in-hospital patients and HCWs (30.2% vs 18.4% of all carriers, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS Absence of exposure to the HCS and younger age predicted exclusive throat carriers, a population at high risk for community-onset methicillin-resistant S. aureus. Screening for S. aureus should include swabs from the anterior nares and from the throat to improve the likelihood of detecting carriers.


Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy | 2009

Outcomes of early switching from intravenous to oral antibiotics on medical wards

Dominik Mertz; Michael T. Koller; Patricia Haller; Markus L. Lampert; Herbert Plagge; Balthasar L. Hug; Gian Koch; Manuel Battegay; Ursula Flückiger; Stefano Bassetti

Objectives To evaluate outcomes following implementation of a checklist with criteria for switching from intravenous (iv) to oral antibiotics on unselected patients on two general medical wards. Methods During a 12 month intervention study, a printed checklist of criteria for switching on the third day of iv treatment was placed in the medical charts. The decision to switch was left to the discretion of the attending physician. Outcome parameters of a 4 month control phase before intervention were compared with the equivalent 4 month period during the intervention phase to control for seasonal confounding (before–after study; April to July of 2006 and 2007, respectively): 250 episodes (215 patients) during the intervention period were compared with the control group of 176 episodes (162 patients). The main outcome measure was the duration of iv therapy. Additionally, safety, adherence to the checklist, reasons against switching patients and antibiotic cost were analysed during the whole year of the intervention (n = 698 episodes). Results In 38% (246/646) of episodes of continued iv antibiotic therapy, patients met all criteria for switching to oral antibiotics on the third day, and 151/246 (61.4%) were switched. The number of days of iv antibiotic treatment were reduced by 19% (95% confidence interval 9%–29%, P = 0.001; 6.0–5.0 days in median) with no increase in complications. The main reasons against switching were persisting fever (41%, n = 187) and absence of clinical improvement (41%, n = 185). Conclusions On general medical wards, a checklist with bedside criteria for switching to oral antibiotics can shorten the duration of iv therapy without any negative effect on treatment outcome. The criteria were successfully applied to all patients on the wards, independently of the indication (empirical or directed treatment), the type of (presumed) infection, the underlying disease or the group of antibiotics being used.


BMJ | 2011

The influence of study characteristics on reporting of subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: systematic review

Xin Sun; Matthias Briel; Jason W. Busse; John J. You; Elie A. Akl; Filip Mejza; Malgorzata M Bala; Dirk Bassler; Dominik Mertz; Natalia Diaz-Granados; Per Olav Vandvik; Germán Málaga; Sadeesh Srinathan; Philipp Dahm; Bradley C. Johnston; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Basil Hassouneh; Jessica Truong; Neil D. Dattani; Stephen D. Walter; Diane Heels-Ansdell; Neera Bhatnagar; Douglas G. Altman; Gordon H. Guyatt

Objective To investigate the impact of industry funding on reporting of subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials. Design Systematic review. Data sources Medline. Study selection Randomised controlled trials published in 118 core clinical journals (defined by the National Library of Medicine) in 2007. 1140 study reports in a 1:1 ratio by high (five general medicine journals with largest number of total citations in 2007) versus lower impact journals, were randomly sampled. Two reviewers, independently and in duplicate, used standardised, piloted forms to screen study reports for eligibility and to extract data. They also used explicit criteria to determine whether a randomised controlled trial reported subgroup analyses. Logistic regression was used to examine the association of prespecified study characteristics with reporting versus not reporting of subgroup analyses. Results 469 randomised controlled trials were included, of which 207 (44%) reported subgroup analyses. High impact journals (adjusted odds ratio 2.64, 95% confidence interval 1.62 to 4.33), non-surgical (versus surgical) trials (2.10, 1.26 to 3.50), and larger sample size (3.38, 1.64 to 6.99) were associated with more frequent reporting of subgroup analyses. The strength of association between trial funding and reporting of subgroups differed in trials with and without statistically significant primary outcomes (interaction P=0.02). In trials without statistically significant results for the primary outcome, industry funded trials were more likely to report subgroup analyses (2.29, 1.30 to 4.72) than non-industry funded trials. This was not true for trials with a statistically significant primary outcome (0.79, 0.46 to 1.36). Industry funded trials were associated with less frequent prespecification of subgroup hypotheses (31.3% v 38.0%, adjusted odds ratio 0.49, 0.26 to 0.94), and less use of the interaction test for analyses of subgroup effects (41.4% v 49.1%, 0.52, 0.28 to 0.97) than non-industry funded trials. Conclusion Industry funded randomised controlled trials, in the absence of statistically significant primary outcomes, are more likely to report subgroup analyses than non-industry funded trials. Industry funded trials less frequently prespecify subgroup hypotheses and less frequently test for interaction than non-industry funded trials. Subgroup analyses from industry funded trials with negative results for the primary outcome should be viewed with caution.


PLOS ONE | 2014

Clinical disease severity of respiratory viral co-infection versus single viral infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Sandra Asner; Dat Tran; Marek Smieja; Arnaud Merglen; Dominik Mertz

Background Results from cohort studies evaluating the severity of respiratory viral co-infections are conflicting. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the clinical severity of viral co-infections as compared to single viral respiratory infections. Methods We searched electronic databases and other sources for studies published up to January 28, 2013. We included observational studies on inpatients with respiratory illnesses comparing the clinical severity of viral co-infections to single viral infections as detected by molecular assays. The primary outcome reflecting clinical disease severity was length of hospital stay (LOS). A random-effects model was used to conduct the meta-analyses. Results Twenty-one studies involving 4,280 patients were included. The overall quality of evidence applying the GRADE approach ranged from moderate for oxygen requirements to low for all other outcomes. No significant differences in length of hospital stay (LOS) (mean difference (MD) −0.20 days, 95% CI −0.94, 0.53, p = 0.59), or mortality (RR 2.44, 95% CI 0.86, 6.91, p = 0.09) were documented in subjects with viral co-infections compared to those with a single viral infection. There was no evidence for differences in effects across age subgroups in post hoc analyses with the exception of the higher mortality in preschool children (RR 9.82, 95% CI 3.09, 31.20, p<0.001) with viral co-infection as compared to other age groups (I2 for subgroup analysis 64%, p = 0.04). Conclusions No differences in clinical disease severity between viral co-infections and single respiratory infections were documented. The suggested increased risk of mortality observed amongst children with viral co-infections requires further investigation.


Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology | 2010

Effect of a Multifaceted Intervention on Adherence to Hand Hygiene among Healthcare Workers: A Cluster-Randomized Trial

Dominik Mertz; Nancy Dafoe; Stephen D. Walter; Mark Loeb

OBJECTIVES Adherence to hand hygiene among healthcare workers (HCWs) is widely believed to be a key factor in reducing the spread of healthcare-associated infection. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of a multifaceted intervention to increase rates of adherence to hand hygiene among HCWs and to assess the effect on the incidence of hospital-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonization. DESIGN Cluster-randomized controlled trial. SETTING Thirty hospital units in 3 tertiary care hospitals in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. INTERVENTION After a 3-month baseline period of data collection, 15 units were randomly assigned to the intervention arm (with performance feedback, small-group teaching seminars, and posters) and 15 units to usual practice. Hand hygiene was observed during randomly selected 15-minute periods on each unit, and the incidence of MRSA colonization was measured using weekly surveillance specimens from June 2007 through May 2008. RESULTS We found that 3,812 (48.2%) of 7,901 opportunities for hand hygiene in the intervention group resulted in adherence, compared with 3,205 (42.6%) of 7,526 opportunities in the control group (P < .001; independent t test). There was no reduction in the incidence of hospital-acquired MRSA colonization in the intervention group. CONCLUSION Among HCWs in Ontario tertiary care hospitals, the rate of adherence to hand hygiene had a statistically significant increase of 6% with a multifaceted intervention, but the incidence of MRSA colonization was not reduced.

Collaboration


Dive into the Dominik Mertz's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Elie A. Akl

American University of Beirut

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Alain Amstutz

University Hospital of Basel

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Mihaela Stegert

University Hospital of Basel

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge