Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18417521›Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2008

Impact of rapid screening tests on acquisition of meticillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus: cluster randomised crossover trial.

Dakshika Jeyaratnam, Christopher J M Whitty, Katie Phillips, Dongmei Liu, Christina Orezzi, Uchechukwu Ajoku, Gary L French

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
11.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 140 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Dutch guideline on the laboratory detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2014
    Guideline
  4. Transmission rates, screening methods and costs of MRSA--a systematic literature review related to the prevalence in Germany.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2012
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Rapid screening and early precautions for carbapenem-resistantAntimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2019
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Screening for Methicillin-resistantJournal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England) · 2017
    Article
  13. Review
  14. [Molecular diagnosis of methicillin-resistent Staphylococcus aureus: Methods and efficacy].Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete · 2016
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Molecular-based diagnostics, including future trends.Medicine (Abingdon, England : UK ed.) · 2013
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Dakshika JeyaratnamDepartment of Infection, Guys and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London. dakshika.jeyaratnam@kcl.ac.uk
Christopher J M Whitty
Katie Phillips
Dongmei Liu
Christina Orezzi
Uchechukwu Ajoku
Gary L French
Thomas Foundation · AUGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GB

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine whether introducing a rapid test for meticillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) screening leads to a reduction in MRSA acquisition on hospital general wards.

designCluster randomised crossover trial.

settingMedical, surgical, elderly care, and oncology wards of a London teaching hospital on two sites.

main outcome measureMRSA acquisition rate (proportion of patients negative for MRSA who became MRSA positive).

participantsAll patients admitted to the study wards who were MRSA negative on admission and screened for MRSA on discharge.

interventionRapid polymerase chain reaction based screening test for MRSA compared with conventional culture.

resultsOf 9608 patients admitted to study wards, 8374 met entry criteria and 6888 had full data (82.3%); 3335 in the control arm and 3553 in the rapid test arm. The overall MRSA carriage rate on admission was 6.7%. Rapid tests led to a reduction in median reporting time from admission, from 46 to 22 hours (P<0.001). Rapid testing also reduced the number of inappropriate pre-emptive isolation days between the control and intervention arms (399 v 277, P<0.001). This was not seen in other measurements of resource use. MRSA was acquired by 108 (3.2%) patients in the control arm and 99 (2.8%) in the intervention arm. When predefined confounding factors were taken into account the adjusted odds ratio was 0.91 (95% confidence interval 0.61 to 1.234). Rates of MRSA transmission, wound infection, and bacteraemia were not statistically different between the two arms.

conclusionA rapid test for MRSA led to the quick receipt of results and had an impact on bed usage. No evidence was found of a significant reduction in MRSA acquisition and on these data it is unlikely that the increased costs of rapid tests can be justified compared with alternative control measures against MRSA.

trial registrationClinical controlled trials ISRCTN75590122 [controlled-trials.com].

Indexed as

Methicillin ResistancePoint-of-Care SystemsCluster AnalysisCross InfectionCross-Over StudiesHumansPolymerase Chain ReactionStaphylococcal InfectionsStaphylococcus aureusTreatment OutcomeWound Infection

Identifiers

PMID18417521
PMCPMC2335244
OpenAlexW1967777320

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.