Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25602284›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2015

Proportions of Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in patients with surgical site infections in mainland China: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Zhirong Yang, Jing Wang, Weiwei Wang, Yuelun Zhang, Lizhong Han, Yuan Zhang, Xiaolu Nie, Siyan Zhan

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Proportions ofOpen forum infectious diseases · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Zhirong YangDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, China; Shantou-Oxford Clinical Research Unit, Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, Guangdong, China.
Jing WangDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Weiwei WangDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Yuelun ZhangDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Lizhong HanDepartment of Clinical Microbiology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Yuan ZhangDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, China; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Xiaolu NieDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Siyan ZhanDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Peking University · CNMcMaster University · CARuijin Hospital · CN

Funding

Wellcome Trust 089276
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSufficient details have not been specified for the epidemiological characteristics of Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) among surgical site infections (SSIs) in mainland China. This systematic review aimed to estimate proportions of S. aureus and MRSA in SSIs through available published studies.

methodsPubMed, Embase and four Chinese electronic databases were searched to identify relevant primary studies published between 2007 and 2012. Meta-analysis was conducted on the basis of logit-transformed metric for proportions of S. aureus and MRSA, followed by pre-defined subgroup meta-analysis. Random-effects meta-regression was also conducted to explore the impact of possible factors on S. aureus proportions.

results106 studies were included, of which 38 studies involved MRSA. S. aureus accounted for 19.1% (95%CI 17.2-21.0%; I(2) = 84.1%) of all isolates in SSIs, which was roughly parallel to 18.5% in the United States (US) (P-value = 0.57) but significantly exceeded those calculated through the surveillance system in China (P-value<0.001). In subgroup analysis, S. aureus in patients with thoracic surgery (41.1%, 95%CI 26.3-57.7%; I(2) = 74.4%) was more common than in those with gynecologic surgery (20.1%, 95%CI 15.6-25.6%; I(2) = 33.0%) or abdominal surgery (13.8%, 95%CI 10.3-18.4%; I(2) = 70.0%). Similar results were found in meta-regression. MRSA accounted for 41.3% (95%CI 36.5-46.3%; I(2) = 64.6%) of S. aureus, significantly lower than that in the US (P-value = 0.001). MRSA was sensitive to vancomycin (522/522) and linezolid (93/94), while 79.9% (95%CI 67.4-88.4%; I(2) = 0%) and 92.0% (95%CI 80.2-97.0%; I(2) = 0%) of MRSA was resistant to clindamycin and erythromycin respectively.

conclusionThe overall proportion of S. aureus among SSIs in China was similar to that in the US but seemed higher than those reported through the Chinese national surveillance system. Proportions of S. aureus SSIs may vary with different surgery types. Commonly seen in SSIs, MRSA tended to be highly sensitive to vancomycin and linezolid but mostly resistant to clindamycin and erythromycin.

Indexed as

Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureusStaphylococcus aureusAnti-Bacterial AgentsChinaGeography, MedicalHumansStaphylococcal InfectionsSurgical Wound InfectionAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID25602284
PMCPMC4300093
OpenAlexW2002389420

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.