ArticleInternational orthopaedics2014
A selected screening programme was less effective in the detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonisation in an orthopaedic unit.
Article in International orthopaedics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus among diabetic patients: a meta-analysis.Acta diabetologica · 2019Pooled it
- Staphylococcus aureus colonization and periprosthetic joint infection in patients undergoing elective total joint arthroplasty: a narrative review.EFORT open reviews · 2023Review
- Prospective surveillance of colonization and disease by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) at a European pediatric cancer center.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022Observational
- What is the most cost-effective strategy for nasal screening and Staphylococcus aureus decolonization in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty?BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOur unit has used a selective screening policy for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) colonisation using standard chromogenic growth media, based upon risk stratification. The aim of this study was to examine the effectiveness of this selective screening policy.
methodsA cohort of 429 patients was assessed for their risk status for MRSA colonisation using both rapid polymerase chain reaction (PCR) swabs and traditional culture and sensitivity analysis. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values and negative predictive values of the traditional selective approach were calculated compared to universal rapid screening.
resultsOne hundred eighteen patients were considered high risk and would traditionally be further screened with standard culture of swabs. The prevalence of MRSA was 15/429 (3.5%). The sensitivity of selective screening was 53% identifying eight of 15 cases. The false-negative rate was therefore 47% and seven would have been missed. PCR results were available within four to six hours, whereas culture results were only available at 24 hours for the media showing no growth and not until 72 hours for positive MRSA cases.
conclusionsWe now advocate universal screening prior to, or on admission, using this rapid PCR test, as we consider this identifies MRSA colonisation more effectively and facilitates "ring-fencing" of orthopaedic beds.
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.