Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28849282›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology2018

MRSA prevalence rates detected in a tertiary care hospital in Austria and successful treatment of MRSA positive patients applying a decontamination regime with octenidine.

G Pichler, C Pux, R Babeluk, B Hermann, E Stoiser, A De Campo, A Grisold, I Zollner-Schwetz, R Krause, W Schippinger

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

G PichlerDepartment of Neurology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, 8020, Graz, Styria, Austria. gerald.pichler@stadt.graz.at.
C PuxDepartment of Neurology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, 8020, Graz, Styria, Austria.
R BabelukDepartment of Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
B HermannDepartment of Medical Geriatrics, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Graz, Styria, Austria.
E StoiserDepartment of Medical Geriatrics, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Graz, Styria, Austria.
A De CampoDepartment of Internal Medicine, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Graz, Styria, Austria.
A GrisoldDepartment of Microbiology and Environmental Medicine, Institute of Hygiene, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Styria, Austria.
I Zollner-SchwetzSection of Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Styria, Austria.
R KrauseSection of Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Styria, Austria.
W SchippingerDepartment of Internal Medicine, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Graz, Styria, Austria.
Albert Schweitzer Klinik · ATMedical University of Graz · ATMedical University of Vienna · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) decontamination regimens predominantly use chlorhexidine bathing in combination with mupirocin nasal ointment. However, resistances in Staphylococcus aureus strains are increasingly common and there is a need of alternative, safe and feasible protocols. This interventional cohort study performed at the Albert Schweitzer Hospital in Graz, Austria, aimed to (1) determine MRSA prevalence at different body sites and (2) assess the efficacy of the decontamination using octenidine-based leave-on products added to existing robust infection control measures. All inpatients of this tertiary care hospital being treated in geriatric medical wards (GWs) and apallic care units (ACUs) were screened for MRSA and decontamination rates were determined after one, two or three decontamination cycles, respectively. At baseline, MRSA was detected in 25 of the 126 patients screened (19.8%). We found MRSA in 13/126 (10.3%) swabs from nasal vestibules, in 12/126 (9.5%) skin swabs, in 11/51 (21.6%) swabs from PEG-stomata or suprapubic catheters and in 8/13 (61.5%) tracheostomata swabs. A maximum of three 5-day decontamination cycles reduced the number of MRSA positive patients by 68.0%. Excluding non-compliant and deceased patients, decontamination reduced MRSA carriage by 93.3% (n = 15). No adverse events related to the applied decontamination regimen occurred. Exclusive screening of the nose might underreport MRSA prevalence rates. In this study, decontamination with octenidine-based leave-on products was safe and effective in a critical patient population.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAnti-Bacterial AgentsAustriaBacterial ProteinsCarrier StateCohort StudiesDisinfectionFemaleHumansIminesMaleMethicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureusMiddle AgedNasal CavityPenicillin-Binding ProteinsAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacterial ProteinsIminesmecA protein, Staphylococcus aureusoctenidinePenicillin-Binding ProteinsPyridinesAntisepticDecontaminationMRSANon-antibioticOctenidinePrevalence

Identifiers

PMID28849282
OpenAlexW2748632387

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.