ArticleBMC infectious diseases2015
Review of a two-year methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus screening program and cost-effectiveness analysis in Singapore.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Economic Evaluation of Interventions to Reduce Antimicrobial Resistance: A Systematic Literature Review of Methods.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Pooled it
- A systematic literature review of economic evaluation studies of interventions impacting antimicrobial resistance.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2023Pooled it
- Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Colonization in Intensive Care and Burn Units: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2023Review
- Article
- Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonisation: epidemiological and molecular characteristics in an acute-care tertiary hospital in Singapore.Epidemiology and infection · 2018Article
- Management of complicated skin and soft tissue infections with a special focus on the role of newer antibiotics.Infection and drug resistance · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) poses an increasingly large disease and economic burden worldwide. The effectiveness of screening programs in the tropics is poorly understood. The aims of this study are: (i) to analyze the factors affecting MRSA colonization at admission and acquisition during hospitalization and (ii) to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a screening program which aims to control MRSA incidence during hospitalization.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective case-control study of patients admitted to the Communicable Disease Centre (CDC) in Singapore between Jan 2009 and Dec 2010 when there was an ongoing selective screening and isolation program. Risk factors contributing to MRSA colonization on admission and acquisition during hospital stay were evaluated using a logistic regression model. In addition, a cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to determine the cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted due to implementing the screening and isolation program.
resultsThe average prevalence rate of screened patients at admission and the average acquisition rate at discharge during the study period were 12.1 and 4.8 % respectively. Logistic regression models showed that older age (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.03, 95 % CI 1.02-1.04, p < 0.001) and dermatological conditions (adjusted OR 1.49, 95 % CI 1.11-1.20, p = 0.008) were independently associated with an increased risk of MRSA colonization at admission. Age (adjusted OR 1.02, 95 % CI 1.01-1.03, p = 0.002) and length of stay in hospital (adjusted OR 1.04, 95 % CI 1.03-1.06, p < 0.001) were independent factors associated with MRSA acquisition during hospitalization. The screening and isolation program reduced the acquisition rate by 1.6 % and was found to be cost saving. For the whole study period, the program cost US$129,916, while it offset hospitalization costs of US$103,869 and loss of productivity costs of US$50,453 with -400 $/DALY averted. DISCUSSION: This study is the first to our knowledge that evaluates the cost-effectiveness of screening and isolation of MRSA patients in a tropical country. Another unique feature of the analysis is the evaluation of acquisition rates among specific types of patients (dermatological, HIV and infectious disease patients)and the comparison of the cost-effectiveness of screening and isolation between them.
conclusionsOverall our results indicate high MRSA prevalence that can be cost effectively reduced by selective screening and isolation programs in Singapore.
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.