ArticleProceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center)2014
Impact of a surveillance screening program on rates of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infections with a comparison of surgical versus nonsurgical patients.
Article in Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ethnic differences in staphylococcus aureus acquisition in cystic fibrosis.Journal of cystic fibrosis : official journal of the European Cystic Fibrosis Society · 2023Article
- Intranasal octenidine and universal antiseptic bathing reduce methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) prevalence in extended care facilities.Epidemiology and infection · 2018Article
- Burden of Invasive Staphylococcus aureus Infections in Hospitalized Infants.JAMA pediatrics · 2015Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a significant cause of health care-associated infection. The overall effectiveness of surveillance screening programs is not well established. A retrospective cohort study was performed to evaluate the impact of a surveillance screening program on the rates of health care-associated MRSA infection (HA-MRSA-I) at a single institution. A subset of surgical patients was analyzed separately. Multivariate regression techniques were used to identify predictors of the desired outcomes. The overall MRSA infection rate was 1.3% in the before cohort and 3.2% in the after cohort. After excluding patients with a history of MRSA infection or MRSA colonization, HA-MRSA-I decreased from 1.2% to 0.87%. There was a similar overall increase in the surgical group, 1.4% to 2.3%, and decrease in HA-MRSA-I, 1.4% to 1.0% (P < 0.001). For all patients, surgery, African American race, and increased length of stay conferred an increased likelihood of HA-MRSA-I. Females and patients in the after cohort had a lower risk of HA-MRSA-I (P < 0.01). In the after cohort, the results were similar, with surgery, African American race, and length of stay associated with an increased risk, and female sex associated with a decreased risk (P < 0.05). African American race and increased age had a higher likelihood of screening positive for MRSA colonization, while the surgical group, females, and Hispanic patients were less likely (P < 0.05). HA-MRSA-I was associated with a higher mortality among all patients (P < 0.001). Mortality rates were similar with HA-MRSA-I for all patients (10.8% vs 9.5%, P = 0.55) and in the surgical group (8.3% vs 6.8%, P = 0.58). In conclusion, surveillance programs may be effective in decreasing HA-MRSA-I. Further studies are needed to determine how to reduce transmission, particularly among African Americans and those with increased lengths of stay.
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.