ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2006
Longitudinal study of the molecular epidemiology of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus at a university hospital.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Antibacterial and Disinfecting Effects of Standardised Tea Extracts on More than 100 Clinical Isolates of Methicillin-ResistantPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Diversification of clonal complex 5 methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains (Rhine-Hesse clone) within Germany.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2013Article
- Implementing the MRSA recommendations made by the Commission for Hospital Hygiene and Infection Prevention (KRINKO) of 1999 - current considerations by the DGKH Management Board.GMS Krankenhaushygiene interdisziplinar · 2009Article
- Isolation and characterization of an epidemic methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus 15 variant in the central United States.Journal of clinical microbiology · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Surveillance for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) at the University Hospital of Heidelberg revealed an increase in the numbers of newly detected MRSA isolates in recent years. We conducted a study to assess the dynamics of the changes in the MRSA population. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) typing of MRSA isolates from all patients at the University Hospital of Heidelberg collected between 1993 and 2004 was performed. The microbiology database contained 1,807 entries for newly detected MRSA isolates from 1,301 patients. A total of 1,252 isolates were available for PFGE typing. The isolates could be classified into 109 different PFGE types. Most PFGE types (n=70) were detected less than five times and showed no evidence of transmission (sporadic strains). They accounted for 8.7% of all isolates, with few variations in frequency over the time. Thirty-seven PFGE types were clustered by time of detection, and transmission of the strains was likely (local epidemic strains). A total of 37.3% of the isolates belonged to this group of strains. The remaining 54.0% of the isolates belonged to only two further PFGE types (endemic strains). One endemic strain accounted for 5.0% of all isolates in 1994 and 68.2% in 2004. A second endemic strain was detected in 1.1% of all isolates in 1998 but in 12.4% in 2004. Statistical analysis of the associations between the kind of strain (sporadic, local epidemic, or endemic) and the patients' characteristics revealed a significant association for age and mode of acquisition. The remarkable increase in the rate of MRSA detection at the University Hospital of Heidelberg is mainly due to the dissemination of two different strains. Infection control measures seemed sufficient to prevent further transmission of some but not all of the strains.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.