ArticleYonsei medical journal2013
Detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in healthcare workers using real-time polymerase chain reaction.
Article in Yonsei medical journal, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Oral Cavity-Another Reservoir of Antimicrobial-ResistantAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Nasal Carriage of Methicillin-ResistantInternational journal of microbiology · 2021Article
- Methicillin-resistantAnnals of hepato-biliary-pancreatic surgery · 2019Article
- PCR-based Approaches for the Detection of Clinical Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.The open microbiology journal · 2016Article
- The Association of Panton-Valentine leukocidin and mecA Genes in Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Isolates From Patients Referred to Educational Hospitals in Ahvaz, Iran.Jundishapur journal of microbiology · 2015Article
- Comparison of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus community-acquired and healthcare-associated pneumonia.Yonsei medical journal · 2014Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Healthcare-associated infections caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) have recently become an important issue for healthcare facilities due to high rates of infection, mortality, and high treatment costs. We investigated the frequency of MRSA in healthcare workers (HCWs) via nasal carriage and assessed the performance of the LightCycler® MRSA Advanced test. We tested nasal swabs from the anterior nares of participating HCWs at an intensive care unit. Nasal swabs were identified as S. aureus, methicillin-sensitive or methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci (MSCoNS or MRCoNS), or MRSA by using conventional culture and the LightCycler® MRSA Advanced test. Of the 142 HCWs who participated in this study, only 11 participants (7.8%) were MRSA-positive by conventional culture and MRSA ID, and 24 (16.9%) were positive for mecA by real time polymerase chain reaction (PCR). In terms of diagnostic performance, the LightCycler® MRSA Advanced test had a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 90.1%, a positive predictive value of 45.8%, and a negative predictive value of 100% compared with conventional culture method. The detection limit of the LightCycler® MRSA Advanced test was 10(3) colony/mL. We concluded that real-time PCR was able to rapidly and sensitively detect MRSA in HCWs. However, MRSA must be confirmed by culture due to false positivity.
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.