ArticleDer Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete2016
[Molecular diagnosis of methicillin-resistent Staphylococcus aureus: Methods and efficacy].
Article in Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Occupationally acquired MRSA colonization and occupational dermatological assessments (BK-No. 3101 in the German list of Occupational Diseases) : Analysis of the DGUV documentation and expert opinion on a case with work-related MRSA-triggered atopic dermatitis].Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) isolates are a serious public health problem whose ever-increasing rate is commensurate with the pressure it is exerting on the healthcare system. At present, more than 20% of clinical S. aureus isolates in German hospitals are methicillin-resistant, in Austria less than 10%. Strategies from low-prevalence countries show that this development is not necessarily inevitable. In the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands, thanks to a rigorous prevention programme, MRSA prevalence has been kept at an acceptably low level (< 1-3%). Central to these search-and-destroy control strategies is an admission screening using several MRSA swabs taken from mucocutaneous colonisation sites of high-risk patients (MRSA surveillance). It has also been reported that the speed with which MRSA carriage is detected has an important role, as it is a key component of any effective strategy to prevent the pathogen from spreading. Since MRSA culturing involves a 2-3 day delay before the final results are available, rapid detection techniques (commonly referred to as MRSA rapid tests) using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods and, most recently, rapid culturing methods have been developed. The implementation of rapid tests reduces the time of detection of MRSA carriers from 48-72 to 2-5 h. Clinical evaluation data have shown that MRSA can thus be detected with very high sensitivity. Specificity, however, is sometimes impaired due to false-positive PCR signals occurring in mixed flora specimens. In order to rule out false-positive PCR results, a culture screen must always be carried out simultaneously. The data provide preliminary evidence that a PCR assay can reduce nosocomial MRSA transmission in high-risk patients or high-risk areas, whereas an approach that screens all patients admitted to the hospital is probably not effective. Information concerning the cost effectiveness of rapid MRSA tests is still sparse and thus the issue remains debated.
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.