SynthesisInfection control and hospital epidemiology2014
Mortality among patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus USA300 versus non-USA300 invasive infections: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Infection control and hospital epidemiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- A Multilayered Imaging and Microfluidics Approach for Evaluating the Effect of Fibrinolysis inPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Fibrinogen Is at the Interface of Host Defense and Pathogen Virulence in Staphylococcus aureus Infection.Seminars in thrombosis and hemostasis · 2016Review
- A Comparison of Clinical Features between Community-Associated and Healthcare-Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Keratitis.Journal of ophthalmology · 2015Article
- Clinical and molecular characteristics of invasive community-acquired Staphylococcus aureus infections in Chinese children.BMC infectious diseases · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCommunity-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA) has been found to be epidemiologically and microbiologically distinct from healthcare-associated MRSA. Most CA-MRSA infections are not invasive; however, fatal outcomes have been reported among healthy people with CA-MRSA invasive infections. Epidemiological studies have attributed a major burden of CA-MRSA infections in the United States to the predominant clone USA300. We investigated the association between USA300 invasive infections and mortality by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that reported mortality rates associated with USA300 strains.
methodsWe searched PubMed, bibliographies of other publications, and gray literature between January 2001 and December 2013. Observational studies of patients with an invasive MRSA infection were included. The exposure of interest was presence of USA300 invasive infection. Studies were included only if they provided MRSA PFGE types and if corresponding mortality data were the measured outcome. We pooled crude odds ratios (cORs) using a random-effects model. Woolf test of homogeneity and Q and I(2) statistics were assessed.
resultsOf 574 articles identified by the search strategy, 8 met the inclusion criteria. Risk of mortality was significantly lower among patients with USA300 MRSA infections (pooled cOR, 0.63 [95% confidence interval (CI)], 0.49-0.81). There was a moderate degree of heterogeneity among study results (P = .29; I(2) = 18%). Results were observed to be heterogeneous due to study design, quality of studies, and definition of mortality.
conclusionsMRSA invasive infection with USA300 does not appear to be associated with higher mortality compared with infections due to non-USA300 strains. Nevertheless, larger well-designed studies are warranted to further evaluate this association.
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.