ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2016
Using MRSA Screening Tests To Predict Methicillin Resistance in Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia.
Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of nares swab to de-escalate vancomycin for patients with suspected methicillin-resistantAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2023Article
- Epidemiology of Community-OnsetThe western journal of emergency medicine · 2019Article
- Screening swabs surpass traditional risk factors as predictors of MRSA bacteremia.BMC infectious diseases · 2018Article
- 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bloodstream infections with Staphylococcus aureus are clinically significant and are often treated with empirical methicillin resistance (MRSA, methicillin-resistant S. aureus) coverage. However, vancomycin has associated harms. We hypothesized that MRSA screening correlated with resistance in S. aureus bacteremia and could help determine the requirement for empirical vancomycin therapy. We reviewed consecutive S. aureus bacteremias over a 5-year period at two tertiary care hospitals. MRSA colonization was evaluated in three ways: as tested within 30 days of bacteremia (30-day criterion), as tested within 30 days but accounting for any prior positive results (ever-positive criterion), or as tested in known-positive patients, with patients with unknown MRSA status being labeled negative (known-positive criterion). There were 409 S. aureus bacteremias: 302 (73.8%) methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) and 107 (26.2%) MRSA bacteremias. In the 167 patients with MSSA bacteremias, 7.2% had a positive MRSA test within 30 days. Of 107 patients with MRSA bacteremia, 68 were tested within 30 days (54 positive; 79.8%), and another 21 (19.6%) were previously positive. The 30-day criterion provided negative predictive values (NPV) exceeding 90% and 95% if the prevalence of MRSA in S. aureus bacteremia was less than 33.4% and 19.2%, respectively. The same NPVs were predicted at MRSA proportions below 39.7% and 23.8%, respectively, for the ever-positive criterion and 34.4% and 19.9%, respectively, for the known-positive criterion. In MRSA-colonized patients, positive predictive values exceeded 50% at low prevalence. MRSA screening could help avoid empirical vancomycin therapy and its complications in stable patients and settings with low-to-moderate proportions of MRSA bacteremia.
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.