ArticlePloS one2014
Nasal screening for MRSA: different swabs--different results!
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.
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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 55 citations in OpenAlex.
- A new in vitro pre-clinical method for testing SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swabs.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Negligible influence of limescale deposits on faucet aerators on measured microorganism loads.European journal of microbiology & immunology · 2025Article
- Microbiological culture versus 16S/18S rRNA gene PCR-sanger sequencing for infectious keratitis: a three-arm, diagnostic cross-sectional study.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Are Staphylococcus aureus Carrier Types Evidence of Population Heterogeneity?American journal of epidemiology · 2023Article
- Survival of Staphylococcus aureus on sampling swabs stored at different temperatures.Journal of applied microbiology · 2021Article
- Targeted Swabbing of Implant-Associated Biofilm Formation-A Staining-Guided Sampling Approach for Optimizing Routine Microbiological Diagnostics.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Compliance to Screening Protocols for Multidrug-Resistant Microorganisms at the Emergency Departments of Two Academic Hospitals in the Dutch-German Cross-Border Region.Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2021Article
- The influence of a swab type on the results of point-of-care tests.AMB Express · 2020Article
- Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: an overview of basic and clinical research.Nature reviews. Microbiology · 2019Review
- Nanomaterial-based optical and electrochemical techniques for detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a review.Mikrochimica acta · 2019Review
- Antibiotic stewardship and horizontal infection control are more effective than screening, isolation and eradication.Infection · 2018Review
- 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 · 2018Article
- Influence of Broth Enrichment as well as Storage and Transport Time on the Sensitivity of MRSA Surveillance in the Tropics.European journal of microbiology & immunology · 2017Article
- Nasal carriage of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) at a palliative care unit: A prospective single service analysis.PloS one · 2017Article
- More Pathogenicity or Just More Pathogens?-On the Interpretation Problem of Multiple Pathogen Detections with Diagnostic Multiplex Assays.Frontiers in microbiology · 2017Review
- [Multidrug resistant bacteria in the intensive care unit : Reasonable measures for prevention].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2016Article
- Screening for Gram-negative bacteria: Impact of preanalytical parameters.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- Article
- Utilizing Moist or Dry Swabs for the Sampling of Nasal MRSA Carriers? An In Vivo and In Vitro Study.PloS one · 2016Article
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
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
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.