Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22151575›Full record

SynthesisBMC infectious diseases2011

Clinical effectiveness of rapid tests for methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in hospitalized patients: a systematic review.

Julie Polisena, Stella Chen, Karen Cimon, Sarah McGill, Kevin Forward, Michael Gardam

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation StudyMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC infectious diseases, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Emergence ofASM case reports · 2026
    Article
  3. Utility of the BioFireDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Implementation of an automated methicillin-resistantAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Methicillin-ResistantInfection and drug resistance · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

6 authors.

Julie PolisenaCanadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Juliep@cadth.ca
Stella Chen
Karen Cimon
Sarah McGill
Kevin Forward
Michael Gardam

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMethicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) are often resistant to multiple classes of antibiotics. The research objectives of this systematic review were to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) versus chromogenic agar for MRSA screening, and PCR versus no screening for several clinical outcomes, including MRSA colonization and infection rates.

methodsAn electronic literature search was conducted on studies evaluating polymerase chain reaction techniques and methicillin (also spelled meticillin) resistant Staphylococcus aureus that were published from 1993 onwards using Medline, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, BIOSIS Previews, and EMBASE. Due to the presence of heterogeneity in the selected studies, the clinical findings of individual studies were described.

resultsNine studies that compared screening for MRSA using PCR versus screening using chromogenic agar in a hospital setting, and two studies that compared screening using PCR with no or targeted screening were identified. Some studies found lower MRSA colonization and acquisition, infection, and transmission rates in screening with PCR versus screening with chromogenic agar, and the turnaround time for screening test results was lower for PCR. One study reported a lower number of unnecessary isolation days with screening using PCR versus screening with chromogenic agar, but the proportion of patients isolated was similar between both groups. The turnaround time for test results and number of isolation days were lower for PCR versus chromogenic agar for MRSA screening.

conclusionsThe use of PCR for MRSA screening demonstrated a lower turnaround time and number of isolation days compared with chromogenic agar. Given the mixed quality and number of studies (11 studies), gaps remain in the published literature and the evidence remains insufficient. In addition to screening, factors such as the number of contacts between healthcare workers and patients, number of patients attended by one healthcare worker per day, probability of colonization among healthcare workers, and MRSA status of hospital shared equipment and hospital environment must be considered to control the transmission of MRSA in a hospital setting.

Indexed as

Bacteriological TechniquesCulture MediaHumansMethicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureusMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesPolymerase Chain ReactionStaphylococcal InfectionsCulture Media

Identifiers

PMID22151575
PMCPMC3259066

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.