ArticleInfection control and hospital epidemiology2015
Screening for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization using sponges.
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 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of Polyvalent Bacterial Lysate and Autovaccines Against Upper Respiratory Tract Bacterial Colonization by Potential Pathogens: A Randomized Study.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2015Trial
- Prevalence and risk factors associated with multi-drug resistant organisms (MDRO) carriage among pediatric patients at the time of admission in a tertiary care hospital of a developing country. A cross-sectional study.BMC infectious diseases · 2021Article
- Indwelling Device-Associated Biofilms in Critically Ill Cancer Patients-Study Protocol.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Prevalence of methicillin-resistantInfection prevention in practice · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Nasal swab culture is the standard method for identifying methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) carriers. However, this method is known to miss a substantial portion of those carrying MRSA elsewhere. We hypothesized that the additional use of a sponge to collect skin culture samples would significantly improve the sensitivity of MRSA detection. DESIGN Hospitalized patients with recent MRSA infection were enrolled and underwent MRSA screening of the forehead, nostrils, pharynx, axilla, and groin with separate swabs and the forehead, axilla, and groin with separate sponges. Staphylococcal cassette chromosome mec (SCCmec) typing was conducted by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). PATIENTS A total of 105 MRSA patients were included in the study. RESULTS At least 1 specimen from 56.2% of the patients grew MRSA. Among patients with at least 1 positive specimen, the detection sensitivities were 79.7% for the swabs and 64.4% for the sponges. Notably, 86.4% were detected by a combination of sponges and nasal swab, and 72.9% were detected by a combination of pharyngeal and nasal swabs, whereas only 50.9% were detected by nasal swab alone (P<0.0001 and P=0.0003, respectively). Most isolates had SCCmec type II (59.9%) and IV (35.7%). No correlation was observed between the SCCmec types and collection sites. CONCLUSION Screening using a sponge significantly improves MRSA detection when used in addition to screening with the standard nasal swab.
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.