Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25627755›Full record

ArticleInfection control and hospital epidemiology2015

Cost-benefit analysis from the hospital perspective of universal active screening followed by contact precautions for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus carriers.

James A McKinnell, Sarah M Bartsch, Bruce Y Lee, Susan S Huang, Loren G Miller

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Infection control and hospital epidemiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Genomic analysis ofFood science & nutrition · 2019
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Isolation Precautions in the Inpatient Setting.Hospital medicine clinics · 2016
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Reply to O'Riordan et al.Infection control and hospital epidemiology · 2015
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

James A McKinnell1Infectious Disease Clinical Outcomes Research Unit,Division of Infectious Disease,Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute,Harbor-UCLA Medical Center,Torrance,California.
Sarah M Bartsch3Public Health Computational and Operations Research Group (PHICOR),Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health,Baltimore,Maryland.
Bruce Y Lee3Public Health Computational and Operations Research Group (PHICOR),Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health,Baltimore,Maryland.
Susan S Huang5Division of Infectious Diseases and Health Policy Research Institute,University of California,Irvine School of Medicine,Irvine,California.
Loren G Miller1Infectious Disease Clinical Outcomes Research Unit,Division of Infectious Disease,Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute,Harbor-UCLA Medical Center,Torrance,California.
Johns Hopkins University · USThe Lundquist Institute · USUCLA Medical Center · USUniversity of California, Irvine · USUniversity of Pittsburgh · US

Funding

UCLA Clinical and Translational Science InstituteKL2TR000122 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI DUBINETT, STEVEN M. · 2012 to 2015
$4.5M
Comparative Effectiveness of MRSA Decolonization StrategiesRC4AI092327 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI HUANG, SUSAN S. · 2010 to 2010
$1.2M
NCATS NIH HHS KL2 TR000122NCATS NIH HHS KL2TR000122NIAID NIH HHS RC4 AI092327NIAID NIH HHS RC4AI092327
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To explore the economic impact to a hospital of universal methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) screening. METHODS We used a decision tree model to estimate the direct economic impact to an individual hospital of starting universal MRSA screening and contact precautions. Projected costs and benefits were based on literature-derived data. Our model examined outcomes of several strategies including non-nares MRSA screening and comparison of culture versus polymerase chain reaction-based screening. RESULTS Under baseline conditions, the costs of universal MRSA screening and contact precautions outweighed the projected benefits generated by preventing MRSA-related infections, resulting in economic costs of $104,000 per 10,000 admissions (95% CI, $83,000-$126,000). Cost-savings occurred only when the model used estimates at the extremes of our key parameters. Non-nares screening and polymerase chain reaction-based testing, both of which identified more MRSA-colonized persons, resulted in more MRSA infections averted but increased economic costs of the screening program. CONCLUSIONS We found that universal MRSA screening, although providing potential benefit in preventing MRSA infection, is relatively costly and may be economically burdensome for a hospital. Policy makers should consider the economic burden of MRSA screening and contact precautions in relation to other interventions when choosing programs to improve patient safety and outcomes.

Indexed as

Hospital CostsMethicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureusCarrier StateColony Count, MicrobialCost-Benefit AnalysisCross InfectionHumansInfection ControlMass ScreeningNoseOropharynxPolymerase Chain ReactionStaphylococcal Infections

Identifiers

PMID25627755
PMCPMC4500653
OpenAlexW1999596248

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.