ArticleThe Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy
Nasal-Swab Results for Methicillin-Resistant
Article in The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ventilator-Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Pneumonia in a Patient with a Negative MRSA Nasal Swab.The American journal of case reports · 2023Article
- Validation of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Risk Factors in Predicting MRSA Community-Acquired Pneumonia at an Academic Medical Center.Hospital pharmacy · 2022Article
- Impact of a Pharmacist-Driven MRSA Nasal PCR Protocol on Pneumonia Therapy.Hospital pharmacy · 2021Article
- Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) Nasal Screening: Clinical Use for Excluding Diabetic Foot Infection with MRSA.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2020Article
- Methicillin-resistantOman journal of ophthalmologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNasal-swab screening for methicillin-resistant
objectiveTo describe the diagnostic characteristics of nasal-swab screening in predicting MRSA infections in hospitalized patients receiving empiric treatment with IV vancomycin.
methodsA retrospective observational chart review was conducted for newly admitted adult patients of the Peter Lougheed Centre in Calgary, Alberta, who were treated empirically with IV vancomycin from January to October 2015 and who underwent nasal-swab screening for MRSA. The diagnostic characteristics of nasal-swab screening were calculated in relation to corresponding culture results for samples collected on admission.
resultsFor the 273 patients included in this study, nasal-swab screening for MRSA showed the following diagnostic characteristics in relation to bacterial culture results: sensitivity 58.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 28.6%-83.5%), specificity 93.9% (95% CI 90.0%-96.3%), positive predictive value 30.4% (95% CI 14.1%-53.0%), negative predictive value 98.0% (95% CI 95.1%-99.3%), positive likelihood ratio 9.5 (95% CI 4.9-18.7), and negative likelihood ratio 0.4 (95% CI 0.2-0.9).
conclusionsGiven the high specificity of this rapid method, clinicians should ensure that patients who are receiving empiric treatment for MRSA infection and who have a positive result on nasal-swab screening continue to receive MRSA coverage until culture results are available. In addition, the high negative predictive value and positive likelihood ratio for nasal-swab screening in a low-prevalence setting suggest that a negative result significantly reduces the probability of MRSA infection. Although nasal-swab screening for MRSA is currently used for determining isolation precautions, this method also had utility in helping clinicians to predict the probability of MRSA infection and in guiding decisions about antimicrobial therapy.
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.