Out-of-season increase of puerperal fever with group A Streptococcus infection: a case-control study, Netherlands, July to August 2018.

We observed an increase in notifications of puerperal group A Streptococcus (GAS) infections in July and August 2018 throughout the Netherlands without evidence for common sources. General practitioners reported a simultaneous increase in impetigo. We hypothesised that the outbreak of puerperal GAS infections resulted from increased exposure via impetigo in the community.We conducted a case-control study to assess peripartum exposure to possible, non-invasive GAS infections using an online questionnaire. Confirmed cases were recruited through public health services while probable cases and controls were recruited through social media. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) with logistic regression analysis.We enrolled 22 confirmed and 23 probable cases, and 2,400 controls. Contact with persons with impetigo were reported by 8% of cases and 2% of controls (OR: 3.26, 95% CI: 0.98-10.88) and contact with possible GAS infections (impetigo, pharyngitis or scarlet fever) by 28% and 9%, respectively (OR: 4.12, 95% CI: 1.95-8.68). In multivariable analysis, contact with possible GAS infections remained an independent risk factor (aOR: 4.28, 95% CI: 2.02-9.09).We found an increased risk of puerperal fever after community contact with possible non-invasive GAS infections. Further study of this association is warranted.

Ignaz Semmelweis: a victim of harassment?

Ignaz Semmelweis' (1818-1865) discovery of the endemic causes of febris puerperalis is a striking example of the role of pathology in medicine. Transdisciplinarity encounters Semmelweis' biography, which is neither linear nor totally focused on medicine. He completed the philosophicum (artisterium), studying the septem artes liberales (1835-1837) in Pest, comprising humanities and natural science. After moving to Vienna, he began to study law, but turned to medicine as early as 1838. In 1844, he graduated with a botanical doctoral thesis composed in Neo-Latin, showing linguistic and stylistic talent and a broad knowledge of gynecology and obstetrics. The style and topoi demonstrate the interchangeability of what he learnt during his propaedeuticum. Nowadays, hardly anyone is familiar with this booklet, for two main reasons: the language choice and the life-saving impact of the physician's opus magnum on the reasons for puerperal fever (Die Aetiologie, der Begriff und die Prophylaxis des Kindbettfiebers). In later life, he became convinced that he had no talent as a (scientific) author-a fatal error that led him to become a victim of what we now call "publish or perish." Semmelweis had felt rejected for years. This negative feeling was the reason for his decision not to publish his great book for 14 years. When it finally went to the printer in 1861, the scientific community did not accept it. This experience caused psychosomatic symptoms owing to his long-standing and deeply felt disappointment. Bad conscience tortured him. This permanent stress destroyed his health: in 1865, his relatives (including his wife) and friends took him from Budapest to Vienna. He thought he was going to spend some time relaxing, but in fact was led into a newly built asylum for the mentally ill, the Niederösterreichische Landesirrenanstalt. When he realized what was happening, he tried to escape. Badly abused, he died from sepsis caused by open wounds and a dirty straightjacket 2 weeks later. This article will show Semmelweis to be a multilingual author of scientific literature and (open) letters; it will present him as a researcher who became a victim of harassment and what is referred to as the "Semmelweis reflex" ("Semmelweis effect"); and it will focus on his afterlife in (children's) literature, drama, and film.

Using Historical Scientific Controversies to Promote Undergraduates' Argumentation.

The Covid-19 pandemic is the reason why humanity is paying more attention to the importance of regular and rigorous handwashing. Interestingly, in the nineteenth century, regular and rigorous handwashing was a key (and controversial) solution proposed by the Hungarian obstetrician Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis to cut drastically cases of puerperal fever. The purpose of this study was to provide evidence that the case of Semmelweis and puerperal fever-a crucial historical scientific controversy-can be used as a springboard to promote university student argumentation. Our study was inspired by the fact that the Organization for Economic and Cooperative Development (OECD) stressed that more efforts and resources should be invested in promoting argumentation as an essential component for scientifically literate citizens in twenty-first century societies. However, nowadays, argument and debate are virtually absent from university science education. The data was derived from 124 undergraduates' (64 females and 60 males, 15-30 years old) written responses and audio and video recordings in a university biology course in Colombia. The findings show that the articulation of this historical controversy with decision-making, small-group debate, and whole-class debate activities can be useful for promoting undergraduates' argumentation. This study contributes to the development of a research-based university science education that can inform the design of an argumentation curriculum for higher education.

Rediscovering Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis (1818-1865).

Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis was a Hungarian obstetrician who discovered the cause of puerperal or childbed fever (CBF) in 1847 when he was a 29-year-old Chief Resident ("first assistant") in the first clinic of the lying-in division of the Vienna General Hospital. Childbed fever was then the leading cause of maternal mortality, and so ravaged lying-in hospitals that they often had to be closed. The maternal mortality rate (MMR) from CBF at the first clinic where Semmelweis worked, and where only medical students were taught, was 3 times greater than at the second clinic, where only midwives were taught, and Semmelweis was determined to find out why. Semmelweis concluded that none of the purported causes of CBF could explain the difference in MMR between the 2 clinics, as they all affected both clinics equally. The clue to the real cause came after Semmelweis' beloved professor, Jacob Kolletschka, died after a student accidentally pricked Kolletscka's finger during an autopsy. Semmelweis reviewed Kolletschka's autopsy report, and noted that the findings were identical to those in mothers dying of CBF. He then made 2 groundbreaking inferences: that Kolletschka must have died of the same disease as mothers dying of CBF, and that the cause of CBF must be the same as the cause of Kolletschka's death, because if the 2 diseases were the same, they must have the same cause. Semmelweis quickly realized why the MMR from CBF was higher on the first clinic: medical students, who assisted at autopsies, were transferring the causative agent from cadavers to the birth canal of mothers in labor with their hands, and he soon discovered that it could also be transferred from living persons with purulent infections. Bacteria had not yet been discovered to cause infections, and Semmelweis called the agent "decaying animal organic matter." He implemented chlorine hand disinfection to remove this organic matter from the hands of the attendants, as soap and water alone had been ineffective. Hand disinfection reduced the MMR from CBF 3- to 10-fold, yet most leading obstetricians rejected Semmelweis' doctrine because it conflicted with all extant theories of the cause of CBF. His work was also used in the fight raging over academic freedom in the University of Vienna Medical School, which turned Semmelweis chief against him, and forced Semmelweis to return to Budapest, where he was equally successful in reducing MMR from CBF. But Semmelweis never received the recognition that his groundbreaking work deserved, and died an ignominious death in 1865 at the age of 47 in an asylum, where he was beaten by his attendants and died of his injuries. Fifteen years later, his work was validated by the adoption of the germ theory, and honors were belatedly showered on Semmelweis from all over the world; but over the last 40 years, a myth has been created that has tarnished Semmelweis' reputation by blaming the rejection of his work on Semmelweis' character flaws. This myth is shown to be a genre of reality fiction that is inconsistent with historical facts.

[The savior of mothers and newborns, whom we shall always be proud of: Ignác Semmelweis (1818-1865). One who defeated the disease, yet could not convince the people, Doctor of Medical Sciences and Surgery, Master of Obstetrics, Professor of Theoretical and Practical Obstetrics at the Pest Royal Hungarian University of Sciences]. / Az anyák és az újszülöttek megmentoje, akire mindig büszkék leszünk: Semmelweis Ignác (1818­1865). Aki legyozte a kórt, de nem gyozte meg a kort, az orvostudományok és a sebészet doktora, szülészmester, a Pesti Királyi Magyar Tudományegyetemen az elméleti és gyakorlati szülészet nyilvános, rendes tanára.

Semmelweis finally achieved results from his persistent research work. Those being the scientific analysis of clinical statistical data and his animal experiments, which recognized the dreadful disease of puerperal fever and its prevention. "He not only discovered the real cause of puerperal fever but he also created antiseptic prophylaxis, which he introduced in obstetrics and laid the foundations of modern surgery (asepsis). The theory and practice of asepsis stemmed from the discovery of the etiology of puerperal fever and therefore originating from the genius idea of Semmelweis. The discoveries of bacteriology by Lister, Pasteur and Koch only provided a scientific proof of the intuitive statements of Semmelweis." Semmelweis was a pioneer of clinical etiological research whose findings were aggressively disapproved by his colleagues due to earlier medical misunderstandings. Semmelweis is given due respect by posterity as a remuneration, to all the bitterness that he had suffered throughout his life. Semmelweis is considered the savior of mothers and infants. The Hungarian nation is very proud of him as he is one of our models whose oeuvre is acknowledged not only in Hungary but throughout the world. The message of his short, tragic yet effective life is eternal. The figure of Ignác Semmelweis is depicted as a statue and is placed in Chicago among the statues of the most innovative doctors and health care professionals of the world. The statue of Semmelweis is next to the statues of Louis Pasteur and Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen. "Semmelweis reflex" is a new expression which appeared and spread in English speaking countries. The word does not relate to a medical phenomenon but describes a social phenomenon when experts or the whole society automatically rejects discoveries and new recognitions without examination or justification. This phenomenon frequently occurs, even in our times. Orv Hetil. 2018; 159(26): 1041-1054.

[Recollection of the great predecessor by a late successor leader]. / Semmelweis Ignác kései tanszékvezetoi utódjának megemlékezése.

Between 1990 and 2007, being the eighth successor leader following Ignác Semmelweis at the university department of obstetrics in Baross Street, what interested me mainly were the following: the lucky coincidences needed for the great discovery, the doctor's hopeless struggles, the circumstances of his death, his five burials and fourfold exhumations, the Hungarianization of his name and the deliberate or unintentional mistakes related to him. In the recollection, my impressions and experiences related to the great predecessor will be reviewed. Orv Hetil. 2018; 159(26): 1071-1078.

[Laudation to the midwives. Midwives and the puerperal fever]. / Laudáció a szülésznoknek. Bábák és a gyermekágyi láz.

Originally published in the Hungarian Postgraduate Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics (2016; 18: 209-2013). Reprint with the contribution and permission of the Professional Publishing Hungary Kft., Budapest. Orv Hetil. 2018; 159(26): 1079-1083.

[Ignác Semmelweis and the Hungarian Medical Weekly Journal]. / Semmelweis Ignác és az Orvosi Hetilap.

Ignác Semmelweis did not publish his discovery in Vienna - i.e., that the puerperal fever may be prevented by careful washing of the hand in chlorine solution (asepsis) - for ten years. The Medical Weekly started its publications edited by Lajos Markusovszky in Pest in 1857. Semmelweis as a professor of theoretical and practical obstetrics at the University of Pest published a study about puerperal fever in the first volume, and Hungarian physicians became familiar with Semmelweis' opinion from this medical journal. Semmelweis was not only an author of the Medical Weekly, but he also edited a supplement of the Medical Weekly entitled Gynaecology and Paediatry. The Medical Weekly published regular accounts of the work of the clinic written by lecturers of Semmelweis and articles describing the most interesting cases of the clinic. Orv Hetil. 2018; 159(26): 1065-1070.

[Semmelweis - a contemplating human. Scientific historical lessons]. / Semmelweis ­ egy gondolkodó ember. Tudománytörténeti tanulságok.

In this article we examine why Semmelweis's seemingly simple, logical and practical discovery was categorically dismissed by the majority of his contemporaries, and why even many years after his death it was accepted with such reservation. We invoke wherever possible Semmelweis's own words citing from the series of articles appearing in the 'Orvosi Hetilap' [Hungarian Medical Weekly Journal] published in 1858 in Hungary, and also from the German language summary of the Journal published in 1860. We came to the conclusion that although Semmelweis did everything in his power to show the causal relationship between the development of puerperal fever (childbed fever) and some infectious substance on the hands of examining doctors and medical students, this was not convincing enough. The predominant theory at the time held that infection was caused by miasma transmitted in the air and therefore stubbornly precluded any notion of infectious matter physically transmitted on unclean hands. We also concluded that the causal sequence observed by Semmelweis was missing an essential empirical element: visual proof of the infectious agent he correctly postulated as physically transmitted. Visually demonstrating the presence of the infectious agent by means of a microscope would have made his case. This finally did occur but only two years after Semmelweis's death. Had the renowned Hungarian obstetrician realized the significance of taking advantage of the opportunity afforded by Dávid Gruby who was conducting experiments in the same town, a more convincing argument could have been made for his theory. In the 1840s and 1850s, Dávid Gruby was experimenting with various microscopic techniques and their application with success in Vienna before continuing his work in France. Gruby's work, especially that of microscopic observations of tissues, received international acceptance. Therefore, the involvement of Gruby and his work with microscopes to support Semmelweis's observations would most probably have forestalled much of the criticism and rejection his theory was initially awarded (among which perhaps Virchow's rejection proved the most damaging). Had Semmelweis utilized microscopic techniques, he would have been celebrated among the first to discover bacterial pathogens, contributing to the development of the currently predominant germ theory. Failure to utilize the microscope was the root cause leading to the tragedy of Semmelweis's rejection by the medical establishment of the time. Despite the increasing numbers of scientists utilizing the microscope at the University of Pest, offered to corroborate his daims with microscopic observations. Efforts have been made have since been to rehabilitate him as the key figure who not only discovered the method of transmission of infectious disease, but also implemented measures of prevention. Elevating him among the ranks of the ten greatest doctors who ever lived is certainly recognition due, but sadly denied to him in his lifetime. Orv Hetil. 2018; 159(26): 1055-1064.

The virulence factors of group A streptococcus strains isolated from invasive and non-invasive infections in Polish and German centres, 2009-2011.

Streptococcus pyogenes (GAS) is one of the major human pathogenic bacteria that cause a wide range of diseases. Currently, increased incidence of streptococcal invasive infections is observed worldwide. In this study, we focused on the prevalence of genes encoding superantigens and type M proteins in the population of GAS strains from invasive versus non-invasive infections. We tested 253 GAS strains: 48 strains from patients with invasive infections (18 from wound/deep skin localization, 30 from women in labour) and 205 strains from non-invasive forms (147 from common infections of the upper respiratory, 49 from the vagina of females with genital tract infections and 9 from non-invasive wound and superficial skin infections). Significant differences were found in the occurrence of genes: speG, speI, speJ and smeZ, which were more common in GAS isolated from invasive than from non-invasive strains; speJ and smeZ occurred more frequently in strains from invasive perinatal infections versus strains from women without symptoms of invasive infection; speH and speI in strains from invasive skin/wound infection versus strains isolated from non-invasive wound and superficial skin infections. Emm types 1 and 12 predominated in the group of strains isolated from superficial infections and type 28 in those from puerperal fever. Occurrence of genes encoding virulence factors is common in genomic DNA of most of S. pyogenes, regardless whether these streptococcal infections are invasive or non-invasive. On the other hand, it appears that strains with speG, speI, speJ and smeZ genes may have a particular potential for virulence.

Innovation in medicine: Ignaz the reviled and Egas the regaled.

In our current climate of rapid technological progress, it seems counterintuitive to think that modern science can learn anything of ethical value from the dark recesses of the nineteenth century or earlier. However, this happens to be quite true, with plenty of knowledge and wisdom to be gleaned by studying our scientific predecessors. Presently, our journals are flooded with original concepts and potential breakthroughs, a continuous stream of ideas pushing the frontiers of knowledge ever forward. Some ideas flourish while others flounder; but what sets the two apart? The distinguishing feature between success and failure within this context is the ability to discern the appropriate time to accept an innovation with open arms, versus when to take a more cautious approach. And the primary arbiters for whether an idea will catch on or not are the professional audience. I illustrate this concept by comparing the initial reception of two innovative ideas from Medicine's past: sterile technique, and prefrontal lobotomy. Sterile technique was first introduced by Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis and was initially ridiculed and rejected, with Semmelweis eventually dying in exile. Conversely, lobotomy was accepted and lauded and its inventor, Dr. Egas Moniz, won the Nobel Prize for his "discovery". This begs the question: why was a technique with the potential to save millions of lives initially rejected, whereas paradoxically, one that compromised and sometimes destroyed lives, accepted? Here I explore and analyze the potential reasons why, suggest how we can learn from these mistakes of the past and apply new insight to some current ethical dilemmas.

Dr. Ignaz Phillip Semmelweis: The Unrecognized Pioneer of Aseptic Practices.

Modern medicine is well-versed in aseptic and infection control practices, such as hand hygiene, proper use of disinfectants, and personal protective equipment. The early 1800s lacked any concept of effective antisepsis because they predominantly believed in the miasma theory (now abandoned), which believed that disease was caused by bad air coming out of rotting organic matter. In the era of "miasma theory," Ignaz Semmelweis dared to pave the way for germ theory disease. Vienna General Hospital supported his work, but his hypothesis remained unpublished and unheard by the rest of the world. In 1861, his major publication, "The etiology, concept, and prophylaxis of childbed fever," sparked strong opposition and rejection of his theories. His mental condition deteriorated due to the strong rejection and criticism from his peers, leading to the development of amnesia, anxiety, and severe depression. He was unfortunately admitted to an Austrian asylum, where he was confined and beaten. Eventually, the man who conquered puerperal fever succumbed to septicemia due to an infected wound from the beating.

Comprehensive analysis of current epidemiology, clinical features and prognostic factors of puerperal endometritis: A retrospective cohort analysis.

Background: Puerperal endometritis has not been recently investigated. We aimed to describe the current dimension of the endometritis in the context of other causes of puerperal fever and investigate the microbiology and need for curettage in these patients. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted based on a prospectively maintained database of patients with puerperal fever, (2014-2020) in which cases fulfilling criteria for endometritis were selected for further analysis. Description of clinical and microbiological features was performed and determination of the factors related with puerperal curettage requirement were studied using univariate and multivariate analysis through binary logistic regression. Results: From 428 patients with puerperal fever, endometritis was the main cause of puerperal fever (233 patients, 52.7 %). Curettage was required in 96 of them (41.2 %). Culture of endometrial samples were performed in 62 (64.5 %), of which 32 (51.6 %) yielded bacterial growth. Escherichia coli was the most common microorganism in curettage cultures (46.9 %). Multivariate analysis identified the following predictive factors for curettage: the presence of pattern compatible with retained products of conception (RPOC) in transvaginal ultrasonography (odds ratio [OR]: 17.6 [95 % confidence interval [CI]: 8.4-36.6]; P-value < 0.0001), fever during the first 14 days after delivery (OR:5.1; [95 % CI: 1.57-16.5]; P-value 0.007), abdominal pain (OR: 2.9; [95 % CI: 1.36-6.1]; P-value 0.012) and malodorous lochia (OR:3.5; [95 % CI: 1.25-9.9]; P-value 0.017). Scheduled cesarean delivery was protective (OR: 0.11 [95 % CI 0.01-1.2]; P-value 0.08). Conclusions: Endometritis is still the main cause of puerperal fever. Women requiring curettage typically presented with abdominal pain and foul-smelling lochia, an ultrasound image compatible with RPOC and fever in the first 14 days postpartum. Curettage culture is useful for the microbiological affiliation mostly yielding gram-negative enteric flora.

Can Clean Delivery Kits Prevent Infections? Lessons from Traditional Birth Attendants in Nigeria.

Background: In resource-poor settings, perinatal infections contribute significantly to maternal and neonatal deaths, and the use of clean delivery kits (CDKs) has been proposed as a tool to reduce the risk of infection-related deaths. This study aims to assess the acceptability and effectiveness of CDKs in preventing infections in deliveries attended by traditional birth attendants (TBAs) in Abeokuta, Nigeria. Methods: The study was a cluster-randomized trial with 67 birth centres/clusters, 453 births/mothers, and 457 babies randomized to intervention or control arms; intervention involved supplementation of delivery with JANMA CDKs. Interviews were conducted at the birth homes, and the primary outcomes were neonatal infection and puerperal fever. The association between infection and perinatal risk factors was tested using the Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests. Results: CDKs were well accepted by TBAs. The incidence of puerperal fever and neonatal infection was 1.1% and 11.2%, respectively. Concurrent infection was found in 1 (0.22%) of the mother-neonate pair. There was no significant association between any of the sociodemographic factors and infection for both mothers and neonates. PROM and prolonged labour were significantly associated with puerperal infection. All mothers with puerperal fever were from the control group. Compared to the control group, the relative risk of puerperal infection and neonatal infection in the intervention group was 0.08 (0.004 -1.35, p = 0.079) and 0.64 (0.37 to 1.1, p = 0.10), respectively. Conclusion: CDKs hold promising results in attenuating maternal infections in resource-poor settings. Larger studies with greater statistical power are required to establish statistically reliable information.

Louis Pasteur: Between Myth and Reality.

Louis Pasteur is the most internationally known French scientist. He discovered molecular chirality, and he contributed to the understanding of the process of fermentation, helping brewers and winemakers to improve their beverages. He proposed a process, known as pasteurization, for the sterilization of wines. He established the germ theory of infectious diseases that allowed Joseph Lister to develop his antiseptic practice in surgery. He solved the problem of silkworm disease, although he had refuted the idea of Antoine Béchamp, who first considered it was a microbial infection. He created four vaccines (fowl cholera, anthrax, pig erysipelas, and rabies) in the paths of his precursors, Henri Toussaint (anthrax vaccine) and Pierre Victor Galtier (rabies vaccine). He generalized the word "vaccination" coined by Richard Dunning, Edward Jenner's friend. Robert Koch, his most famous opponent, pointed out the great ambiguity of Pasteur's approach to preparing his vaccines. Analysis of his laboratory notebooks has allowed historians to discern the differences between the legend built by his hagiographers and reality. In this review, we revisit his career, his undeniable achievements, and tell the truth about a hero who made every effort to build his own fame.

The little-known history of cleanliness and the forgotten pioneers of handwashing.

Handwashing is a simple method for preventing the spread of pathogens. It is now common practice, but this was not always the case. Advocating for it often costed a doctor his career in the 1840s. Hospitals in the early 1800s had little idea of the significance of hygiene; thus, they were often mocked as disease-producing incubators or as "houses of death." Many of the ill and dying were kept on wards with no ventilation or access to clean water; hospitals were found to offer only the most basic care. The mortality rate for patients admitted to hospital was three to five times greater than that for individuals cared for at home. Doctors did not routinely wash their hands until the mid-1800s, and they would proceed straight from dissecting a corpse to delivering a baby, providing the basis for the spread of puerperal fever. Despite advances in modern medicine, healthcare providers still face the issue of infection outbreaks caused by patient care. While the body of scientific data supporting hand hygiene as the key strategy to prevent the spread of pathogens is substantial, we highlight that achieving this crucial, long-awaited breakthrough was a hard task through history.

Preoperative vaginal cleansing with chlorhexidine vs placebo in patients with rupture of membranes: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-control study.

BACKGROUND: XXX OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to demonstrate that vaginal cleansing with a 4% chlorhexidine solution before cesarean delivery in patients with a history of rupture of membranes prevents postoperative infectious complications (endometritis, surgical site infections). STUDY DESIGN: A total of 204 patients with premature rupture of membranes or who were in labor for more than 6 hours after membranes ruptured were randomized before a cesarean delivery to preoperative vaginal cleansing with a chlorhexidine solution (n=97 patients) or to placebo cleansing with saline solution (n=107 patients). The management of the rupture of membranes and the cesarean delivery procedure were conducted according to standard local protocols for both groups, including the use of antibiotics. RESULTS: Vaginal cleansing with chlorhexidine reduced the risk for endometritis after cesarean delivery in patients with rupture of membranes when compared with placebo cleansing (chlorhexidine, 7.21% vs placebo, 18.8%; relative risk, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-0.87; P=.015). Likewise, there was a statistically significant reduction in the number of cases of puerperal fever (chlorhexidine, 9.28% vs placebo, 19.8%; relative risk, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.98; P=.037). There was a statistical difference between the groups in prolongation of hospitalization for >72 hours (chlorhexidine, 1.03% vs placebo, 7.55%; relative risk, 0.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-1.08; P=.02), although the confidence interval suggests that the effect was by chance. There were no statistical differences in surgical site infection at 7 days (chlorhexidine, 1.03% vs placebo, 0.94%; relative risk, 1.1; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-17.4; P=.94) and 15 days after the procedure (chlorhexidine, 1.03% vs placebo, 0%; relative risk, 3.31 [using a continuity correction]; 95% confidence interval, 0.14-80.21; P=.29). CONCLUSION: The use of chlorhexidine for vaginal cleansing before a cesarean delivery in patients with rupture of membranes reduced the risk for endometritis and puerperal fever. It also reduced the number of cases that required hospitalization for more than 3 days, but the confidence interval suggests that it could be by chance. It has no effect on the number of cases with surgical site infection.

Semmelweis Reflex: An Age-Old Prejudice.

BACKGROUND: Semmelweis reflex is a human behavioral tendency to stick to preexisting beliefs and to reject fresh ideas that contradict them (despite adequate evidence). We aim to familiarize the readers with the term that not only has a significant historical background but also grave clinical implications. METHODS: A keyword search for "Semmelweis reflex," "Belief perseverance," "handwashing," and "Idea rejection" was conducted using PubMed Central, MEDLINE, and Google SCHOLAR. Literature published in paper-based journals and books was also searched. All manuscripts pertaining to these keywords were thoroughly analyzed for this review. RESULTS: The first section of our paper briefs the story of Ignaz Semmelweis and brushes on the contributions of other intellectual researchers that were rebuffed initially. The discussion further explains the root cause of this dismissal, an inherent bias against uncertainty that may be at the core of our fear for new ideas. Finally, this review explores the means by which we can prevent ourselves from being a victim of rejection. CONCLUSIONS: The age-old prejudice that is Semmelweis reflex is explored in this review. With careful and thorough study design, scientific rigor, and critical self-analysis of the manuscript, one can avoid being victimized by this reflex. The dual edged nature of this reflex lays unveiled when its importance is highlighted in the prematurely accepted medical failures. Understanding that any new idea goes through the grill of being critically analyzed and perceived encourages the scientist to hold on to the original thought as it may rather be practice changing.

Ignac Semmelweis-Father of Hand Hygiene.

Hungarian obstetrician Ignac Semmelweis (1818-1865) was one of the earliest clinical investigators of modern medical science. In nineteenth century Europe, puerperal fever (childbed fever) was a major clinical and public health problem with very high maternal mortality. It was thought to be caused by miasma, epidemicity, or the Will of Providence. Apart from bloodletting, there was no cure for it. Semmelweis cared for the childbed fever women during their illness, and when they died, he did autopsies on them. Astute clinical observations and logical reasoning goaded Semmelweis to suspect the role of "unholy" hands of "holy" physicians in the transmission of puerperal fever. He enforced a hand-washing policy for physicians. Those with unwashed hands were disallowed into labor room. The hand-washing practice for 1 year led to unprecedented decrease in maternal mortality. It enabled Semmelweis to establish a strong, specific, temporal causal association between unclean hands and puerperal fever. Although not accepted during his lifetime, this causal hypothesis contributed significantly to the understanding of etiopathophysiology of not only puerperal fever but also many other communicable diseases. Clinical hand washing, since then, has prevented millions of deaths of humankind. In the present times too, his idea of hand hygiene plays a central role in COVID-19 pandemic management. Authors present a brief account of life and work of this maverick genius, who was born "too early in the darkness." He is also called the "Father of infection control" and "Savior of mothers."

From septicemia to sepsis 3.0 - from Ignaz Semmelweis to Louis Pasteur.

Sepsis remains a contemporary threat, and its frequency remains high amongst an aging population. Its definition has been regularly revisited, but the impact of the translational research studying it remains very modest compared to the results seen after the introduction of hygiene and the use of antibiotics. In the past, the main forms of sepsis were hospital gangrene (also known as nosocomial fever or putrid fever) that affected the wounded, and puerperal fever that affected women shortly after delivery. In 1858, Armand Trousseau stated that these two pathologies were identical. Lucrezia Borgia, who died in 1519, is undoubtedly the most famous woman to die from puerperal fever. The notion of sepsis as a real epidemic was deplored. For decades doctors remained deaf to the recommendations of their clairvoyant colleagues who advocated for the use of hygienic measures. It was as early as 1795 that Alexander Gordon (UK) and later in 1843, Oliver Holmes (USA), called for the use of hygienic practices. In 1847, Ignaz Semmelweis, a Hungarian physician, provided an irrefutable demonstration of the importance of hygiene in the prevention of contamination by the hands of the practitioners. But Ignaz Semmelweis' life was a tragedy, his fight against the medical nomenklatura was a tragedy, and his death was a tragedy! Nowadays, Ignaz Semmelweis is receiving the honor that he deserves, but never received during his life. Carl Mayrhofer, Victor Feltz, and Léon Coze were the first to associate the presence of bacteria with sepsis. These observations were confirmed by Louis Pasteur who, thanks to his prestige, had a great influence on how to undertake measures to prevent infections. He inspired Joseph Lister who reduced mortality associated with surgery, particularly amputation, by utilizing antiseptic methods.