ArticlePloS one2016
Utilizing Moist or Dry Swabs for the Sampling of Nasal MRSA Carriers? An In Vivo and In Vitro Study.
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 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy of α-Viniferin inPolish journal of microbiology · 2021Trial
- Asymptomatic Nasal Carriage of MRSA Among Romanian Medical Students: Prevalence and Sampling Technique Comparison.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- Nasopharyngeal Swabs vs. Nasal Aspirates for Respiratory Virus Detection: A Systematic Review.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Article
- Review
- Nanomaterial-based optical and electrochemical techniques for detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a review.Mikrochimica acta · 2019Review
- Review
- Influence of Broth Enrichment as well as Storage and Transport Time on the Sensitivity of MRSA Surveillance in the Tropics.European journal of microbiology & immunology · 2017Article
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
This study investigates the quantitative bacterial recovery of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in nasal screenings by utilizing dry or moistened swabs within an in vivo and an in vitro experimental setting. 135 nasal MRSA carriers were each swabbed in one nostril with a dry and in the other one with a moistened rayon swab. Quantitative bacterial recovery was measured by standard viable count techniques. Furthermore, an anatomically correct artificial nose model was inoculated with a numerically defined suspension of MRSA and swabbed with dry and moistened rayon, polyurethane-foam and nylon-flocked swabs to test these different settings and swab-materials under identical laboratory conditions. In vivo, quantities of MRSA per nostril in carriers varied between <101 and >107 colony forming units, with a median of 2.15x104 CFU. However, no statistically significant differences could be detected for the recovery of MRSA quantities when swabbing nasal carriers with moist or dry rayon swabs. In vitro testing confirmed the in vivo data for swabs with rayon, polyurethane and nylon-flocked tips, since pre-moistening of swabs did not significantly affect the quantities of retrieved bacteria. Therefore, pre-moistening of swabs prior to nasal MRSA sampling provides no advantage in terms of recovering greater bacterial quantities and therefore can be omitted. In addition, this situation can be mimicked in an in vitro model, thereby providing a useful basis for future in vitro testings of new swab types or target organisms for screening approaches.
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.