Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26985400›Full record

ArticleGMS hygiene and infection control2016

A comparison of the recoverable proportion of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus from two different types of papers.

Birgul Kacmaz, Serdar Gul

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GMS hygiene and infection control, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Birgul KacmazKirikkale University, Medical Faculty, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Yahsihan/Kirikkale, Turkey.
Serdar GulKirikkale University, Medical Faculty, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Yahsihan/Kirikkale, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimPaper is used for various purposes in hospitals. Generally, there are two different types of paper, which are commonly used in our facility: wood-free paper, and paper containing wood. We compared the recoverable proportion of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA; ATCC 43300) from the surface of such papers.

methodThe papers were divided into two groups: Group 1: wood-free paper; Group 2: paper containing wood. The papers were contaminated in a standardized procedure with 0.1 mL of a 5×10(7) CFU MRSA/mL stock solution.

resultsThe recoverable proportion of MRSA was higher in the wood-containing papers than in the papers without wood (P=0.043).

conclusionThis study indicates that if paper is purchased for healthcare facilities it should not contain wood, but rather wood-free paper types should be considered.

Indexed as

environmental contaminationmethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureusMRSApaper

Identifiers

PMID26985400
PMCPMC4786743

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.