Response to McKinnell et al's original article "cost-benefit analysis from the hospital perspective of universal active screening followed by contact precautions for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus carriers".

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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

1. Nasal carriage of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) at a palliative care unit: A prospective single service analysis.PloS one · 2017
   Article
2. Reply to O'Riordan et al.Infection control and hospital epidemiology · 2015
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Reply to O'Riordan et al.2015
• Comment on
  Cost-benefit analysis from the hospital perspective of universal active screening followed by contact precautions for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus carriers.2015

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as