This ERI review concludes that there was really only one RCT (the one you linked), and they found that the study didn’t actually reach significance
Our calculation found that the difference in the HAI rate (regardless of MRSA/VRE colonization status) between the study groups was not significant (copper-equipped ICUs: 17⁄294 [5.8%] versu snon-copper-equipped ICUs: 29⁄320 [9.1%]; p=0.123). The median length of stay for both groups was four days (p=0.74). The reported mortality rate was 42⁄294 patients (14.29%) in copper-equipped ICUs versus 50⁄320 (15.63%) in non-copper-equipped ICUs(p=0.64).
What’s going on here is that Salgado splits outcomes into 4 groups, nothing, infection, colonization, and both, and finds a difference between the 4 groups. The review says “I only care about infection” and compares infection vs non-infection, and finds no significance. Each version of their math checks out, but I’m inclined to trust the review here.
This quasiexperimental study found similar decreases in infection rates however.
I’m not sure how to evaluate this evidence, but I’d be cautious about taking the Salgado results on its face.
The email that was sent about this has a broken “localhost” unsubscribe and manage subscriptions link
unsubscribe: http://localhost:3000/emailToken/$TOKEN
change settings: http://localhost:3000/account
The email is also has images hidden due to potentially being spam by gmail, so perhaps there is something else misconfigured.