Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25353631›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Nasal screening for MRSA: different swabs--different results!

Philipp Warnke, Hagen Frickmann, Peter Ottl, Andreas Podbielski

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Efficient processing of MRSA screening specimens by a modified inoculation protocol.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2018
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Philipp WarnkeInstitute of Medical Microbiology, Virology, and Hygiene, Rostock University Hospital, Rostock, Germany.
Hagen FrickmannInstitute of Medical Microbiology, Virology, and Hygiene, Rostock University Hospital, Rostock, Germany; Department of Tropical Medicine at the Bernhard Nocht Institute, German Armed Forces Hospital Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Peter OttlDepartment of Prosthodontics and Material Sciences, Rostock University Hospital, Rostock, Germany.
Andreas PodbielskiInstitute of Medical Microbiology, Virology, and Hygiene, Rostock University Hospital, Rostock, Germany.
University of Rostock · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesSwab-based nasal screening is commonly used to identify asymptomatic carriage of Staphylococcus aureus in patients. Bacterial detection depends on the uptake and release capacities of the swabs and on the swabbing technique itself. This study investigates the performance of different swab-types in nasal MRSA-screening by utilizing a unique artificial nose model to provide realistic and standardized screening conditions.

methodsAn anatomically correct artificial nose model was inoculated with a numerically defined mixture of MRSA and Staphylococcus epidermidis bacteria at quantities of 4×10(2) and 8×10(2) colony forming units (CFU), respectively. Five swab-types were tested following a strict protocol. Bacterial recovery was measured for direct plating and after elution into Amies medium by standard viable count techniques.

resultsMean recovered bacteria quantities varied between 209 and 0 CFU for MRSA, and 365 and 0 CFU for S. epidermidis, resulting swab-type-dependent MRSA-screening-sensitivities ranged between 0 and 100%. Swabs with nylon flocked tips or cellular foam tips performed significantly better compared to conventional rayon swabs referring to the recovered bacterial yield (p<0.001). Best results were obtained by using a flocked swab in combination with Amies preservation medium. Within the range of the utilized bacterial concentrations, recovery ratios for the particular swab-types were independent of the bacterial species.

conclusionsThis study combines a realistic model of a human nose with standardized laboratory conditions to analyze swab-performance in MRSA-screening situations. Therefore, influences by inter-individual anatomical differences as well as diverse colonization densities in patients could be excluded. Recovery rates vary significantly between different swab-types. The choice of the swab has a great impact on the laboratory result. In fact, the swab-type contributes significantly to true positive or false negative detection of nasal MRSA carriage. These findings should be considered when screening a patient.

Indexed as

BiopsyHumansMethicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureusModels, AnatomicNasal Mucosa

Identifiers

PMID25353631
PMCPMC4213029
OpenAlexW2091757214

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.