ArticleEnfermedades infecciosas y microbiologia clinica2009
[Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in patients with cystic fibrosis].
Article in Enfermedades infecciosas y microbiologia clinica, 2009. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- The first report of Methicillin-resistantInternational journal of pediatrics & adolescent medicine · 2020Article
- Revisiting Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Infections.Journal of global infectious diseases · 2010Article
- Incidence and treatment of methicillin-resistant S. aureus infection in cystic fibrosis patients: a cohort study.The Brazilian journal of infectious diseases : an official publication of the Brazilian Society of Infectious DiseasesArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the prevalence of chronic colonization with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in patients with cystic fibrosis, describe antibiotic sensitivity of the strains, and compare the patients' clinical characteristics with those of patients infected with methicillin-sensitive S. aureus (MSSA). PATIENTS AND
methodsPatients with chronic S. aureus colonization were selected from a total of 50 patients with cystic fibrosis. Sputum samples were cultured according to standard microbiological procedures. Patients were considered to have chronic bronchial colonization if the same microorganism was isolated in 3 consecutive sputum samples, separated by an interval of at least 1 month. The following variables were compared between patients with MSSA (17) and MRSA (8): sex, body mass index, presence of pancreatic insufficiency, bacterial colonization, pulmonary function, Brasfield radiological score, Shwachman clinical score, and number of respiratory exacerbations in the previous year.
resultsThe prevalence of infection by MRSA was 16%. All the MRSA strains were sensitive to vancomycin, teicoplanin, and linezolid. Patients with MRSA were older and had a larger number of respiratory exacerbations than patients with MSSA.
conclusionsThere is a high percentage of colonization by MRSA in adult cystic fibrosis patients. Although the pathogenic role of this microorganism remains unclear, patients with MRSA had more frequent exacerbations and poorer lung function. Thus, infection control is important and patients should be adequately monitored.
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.