Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27462905›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Cost Analysis of Universal Screening vs. Risk Factor-Based Screening for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).

Virginia R Roth, Tara Longpre, Doug Coyle, Kathryn N Suh, Monica Taljaard, Katherine A Muldoon, Karamchand Ramotar, Alan Forster

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Methicillin-resistantAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2025
    Article
  4. Modeling relaxed policies for discontinuation of methicillin-resistantInfection control and hospital epidemiology · 2024
    Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Genomic Surveillance of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: A Mathematical Early Modeling Study of Cost-effectiveness.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2020
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
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

8 authors.

Virginia R RothDepartment of Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Tara LongpreSchool of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Doug CoyleSchool of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Kathryn N SuhDepartment of Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Monica TaljaardOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Katherine A MuldoonOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0766-4294
Karamchand RamotarOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Alan ForsterDepartment of Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital and University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe literature remains conflicted regarding the most effective way to screen for MRSA. This study was designed to assess costs associated with universal versus risk factor-based screening for the reduction of nosocomial MRSA transmission.

methodsThe study was conducted at The Ottawa Hospital, a large multi-centre tertiary care facility with approximately 47,000 admissions annually. From January 2006-December 2007, patients underwent risk factor-based screening for MRSA on admission. From January 2008 to August 2009 universal MRSA screening was implemented. A comparison of costs incurred during risk factor-based screening and universal screening was conducted. The model incorporated probabilities relating to the likelihood of being tested and the results of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing with associated effects in terms of MRSA bacteremia and true positive and negative test results. Inputted costs included laboratory testing, contact precautions and infection control, private room costs, housekeeping, and length of hospital stay. Deterministic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

resultsThe risk factor-based MRSA screening program screened approximately 30% of admitted patients and cost the hospital over $780 000 annually. The universal screening program screened approximately 83% of admitted patients and cost over $1.94 million dollars, representing an excess cost of $1.16 million per year. The estimated additional cost per patient screened was $17.76.

conclusionThis analysis demonstrated that a universal MRSA screening program was costly from a hospital perspective and was previously known to not be clinically effective at reducing MRSA transmission. These results may be useful to inform future model-based economic analyses of MRSA interventions.

Indexed as

Hospital CostsCanadaHumansMass ScreeningMethicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureusMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesProgram EvaluationStaphylococcal Infections

Identifiers

PMID27462905
PMCPMC4963093

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.