ArticlePloS one2016
Cost Analysis of Universal Screening vs. Risk Factor-Based Screening for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus among diabetic patients: a meta-analysis.Acta diabetologica · 2019Pooled it
- Implementation of wastewater-based epidemiology in a Northern California acute care hospital: a pilot study, June-July 2024.The Journal of hospital infection · 2026Article
- Methicillin-resistantAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2025Article
- Modeling relaxed policies for discontinuation of methicillin-resistantInfection control and hospital epidemiology · 2024Article
- Observational
- A Data-Driven Framework for Identifying Intensive Care Unit Admissions Colonized With Multidrug-Resistant Organisms.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Rapid MRSA detection via tandem mass spectrometry of the intact 80 kDa PBP2a resistance protein.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- 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 · 2020Article
- Infection control and risk factors for acquisition of carbapenemase-producing enterobacteriaceae. A 5 year (2011-2016) case-control study.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2020Article
- Patients with Rheumatic Diseases do not have an Increased Risk of MRSA Carrier Status.Rheumatology and therapy · 2018Article
- Screening of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nasal colonization among elective surgery patients in referral hospital in Indonesia.BMC research notes · 2018Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.