ArticleDiagnostic microbiology and infectious disease2014
Dual-site sampling improved detection rates for MRSA colonization in patients with cutaneous abscesses.
Article in Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Use of Rapid Molecular Testing for Staphylococcus aureus for Patients With Cutaneous Abscesses in the Emergency Department With Standard of Care.Infection control and hospital epidemiology · 2015Trial
- Dynamic shifts in pathogen ecology of catheter-related bloodstream infections: temporal trends and ward-specific risk landscapes.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Clinical Relevance of Xpert MRSA/SA in Guiding Therapeutic Decisions for Staphylococcal Infections: A Diagnostic Test Accuracy Analysis.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2022Article
- Analysis of the effects of cigarette smoke on staphylococcal virulence phenotypes.Infection and immunity · 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
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Extranasal sites are common reservoirs of Staphylococcus aureus colonization and may be relevant for methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) screening and infection control strategies. The objective here was to determine whether inguinal specimens could also be screened using Xpert SA Nasal Complete assay for MRSA. Results were compared to broth enrichment culture. Among 162 consented adults seeking care in the emergency department for cutaneous abscesses, inguinal specimens were found positive for MRSA more often than nares specimens, 24% and 26% by PCR or culture, respectively, compared to 19% each by PCR or culture. Overall, 6% of adults colonized with MRSA would have been missed by nares screening alone. Compared to culture, Xpert SA Nasal Complete assay demonstrated sensitivity and specificity of 89% and 97%, respectively, for detecting nares and/or inguinal MRSA colonization. In conclusion, inguinal specimens were a more common reservoir for MRSA than nares specimens in this population of patients.
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.