ArticleJournal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR2015
Screening for Mupirocin Resistance in Staphylococcus.
Article in Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Disk Diffusion and Agar Dilution Method for the Detection of Mupirocin Resistance in Staphylococcal Isolates from Skin and Soft Tissue Infections.Journal of laboratory physicians · 2023Article
- Article
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
introductionMupirocin is widely used topical antibiotic for the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections caused by Staphylococcus and Streptococcus. In addition nasal formulations are approved for the use in nasal eradication of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in patients and health care workers. Wide usage of mupirocin has resulted in resistance leading to treatment failure.
aimTo screen for the mupirocin resistance among the Staphylococcus isolates using disc diffusion and minimum inhibitory concentration method. MATERIALS AND
methodsA cross-sectional study was done at Microbiology Department of Sri Ramachandra University with 100 strains of Staphylococcus spp isolated from skin and soft tissue infections. Methicillin susceptibility was done by disc diffusion method using oxacillin (1 μgm) and cefoxitin (30 μgm) discs. Isolates were screened for mupirocin resistance by disc diffusion method using 5 μgm discs. High level and low level resistance determined by MIC using agar dilution method.
resultsIn 100 Staphylococcus spp 56 were Staphylococcus aureus and 44 were CoNS. Among the 56 Staphylococcus aureus 49 (87.5%) were mupirocin susceptible and 7 (12.5%) resistant by 5μg disc diffusion method. However by MIC method 11 (19.6%) were high and low level mupirocin resistant. Out of 44 CoNS 22 (50%) and 18 (41%) were susceptible by disc diffusion and MIC method respectively. Of the 26 resistant CoNS low level and high level mupirocin resistant was observed in 7 (15.9%) and 19 (43.1%) respectively.
conclusionScreening for mupirocin resistance by disc diffusion method is important before attempting decolonisation. Mupirocin resistance is more with CoNS. Disc diffusion method may miss low level Mupirocin resistance.
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.