Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17682105›Full record

Trial reportAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2007

Targeted intranasal mupirocin to prevent colonization and infection by community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains in soldiers: a cluster randomized controlled trial.

Michael W Ellis, Matthew E Griffith, David P Dooley, Joseph C McLean, James H Jorgensen, Jan E Patterson, Kepler A Davis, Joshua S Hawley, Jason A Regules, Robert G Rivard and 4 more

Open access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

55 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 129 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Household versus individual approaches to eradication of community-associated Staphylococcus aureus in children: a randomized trial.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2012
    Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Profiling of serum factors associated withFrontiers in immunology · 2023
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Michael W EllisDepartment of Medicine, Brooke Army Medical Center, Infectious Disease Service (MCHE-MDI), Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234, USA. michael.w.ellis@us.army.mil
Matthew E Griffith
David P Dooley
Joseph C McLean
James H Jorgensen
Jan E Patterson
Kepler A Davis
Joshua S Hawley
Jason A Regules
Robert G Rivard
Paula J Gray
Julia M Ceremuga
Mary A Dejoseph
Duane R Hospenthal
General Department of Preventive Medicine · VNSan Antonio Military Medical Center · USThe University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA) is an emerging pathogen that primarily manifests as uncomplicated skin and soft tissue infections. We conducted a cluster randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to determine whether targeted intranasal mupirocin therapy in CA-MRSA-colonized soldiers could prevent infection in the treated individual and prevent new colonization and infection within their study groups. We screened 3,447 soldiers comprising 14 training classes for CA-MRSA colonization from January to December 2005. Each training class was randomized to either the mupirocin or placebo study group, and the participants identified as CA-MRSA colonized were treated with either mupirocin or placebo. All participants underwent repeat screening after 8 to 10 weeks and were monitored for 16 weeks for development of infection. Of 3,447 participants screened, 134 (3.9%) were initially colonized with CA-MRSA. Five of 65 (7.7%; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 4.0% to 11.4%) placebo-treated participants and 7 of 66 (10.6%; 95% CI, 7.9% to 13.3%) mupirocin-treated participants developed infections; the difference in the infection rate of the placebo- and mupirocin-treated groups was -2.9% (95% CI, -7.5% to 1.7%). Of those not initially colonized with CA-MRSA, 63 of 1,459 (4.3%; 95% CI, 2.7% to 5.9%) of the placebo group and 56 of 1,607 (3.5%; 95% CI, 2.6% to 5.2%) of the mupirocin group developed infections; the difference in the infection rate of the placebo and mupirocin groups was 0.8% (95% CI, -1.0% to 2.7%). Of 3,447 participants, 3,066 (89%) were available for the second sampling and completed follow-up. New CA-MRSA colonization occurred in 24 of 1,459 (1.6%; 95% CI, 0.05% to 2.8%) of the placebo group participants and 23 of 1,607 (1.4%; 95% CI, 0.05% to 2.3%) of the mupirocin group participants; the difference in the infection rate of the placebo and mupirocin groups was 0.2% (95% CI, -1.3% to 1.7%). Despite CA-MRSA eradication in colonized participants, this study showed no decrease in infections in either the mupirocin-treated individuals or within their study group. Furthermore, CA-MRSA eradication did not prevent new colonization within the study group.

Indexed as

Methicillin ResistanceAdministration, IntranasalAdultAnti-Bacterial AgentsCommunity-Acquired InfectionsCulture MediaDouble-Blind MethodDrug Delivery SystemsFemaleHumansMaleMilitary PersonnelMupirocinSpecimen HandlingStaphylococcal InfectionsStaphylococcus aureusAnti-Bacterial AgentsCulture MediaMupirocin

Identifiers

PMID17682105
PMCPMC2043273
OpenAlexW2116218322

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.