ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care
Prevalence of nasal colonization of methicillin-resistant
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care. 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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antimicrobial Susceptibility and Genomic Profiles of Multidrug-ResistantLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Nasal Carriage and Methicillin Resistance ofInternational journal of microbiology · 2021Article
- A Systemic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis Reporting the Prevalence and Impact of Methicillin-ResistantInfectious diseases · 2020Article
- Is methicillin-resistantRisk management and healthcare policy · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe study aimed to determine the prevalence of nasal colonization of methicillin-resistant MATERIALS AND
methodsSchool-going children of age group of 5-15 years were identified and selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two nasal swabs were collected from each child as per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines and transported to laboratory. Swabs were cultured on mannitol salt agar and 5% blood agar and incubated for 18-24 h at 37°C. Identification was done as per routine laboratory protocol. Detection of MRSA was done through cefoxitin 30 μg discs and D-zone test. Antibiotic susceptibility pattern of
resultsOut of 300 children, 140 (46.67%) were found to be nasal carriage for
conclusionWith the risk involved in transmission of infection, steps for identifying the carriers and its eradication should be carried out. Rational use of antibiotics should be given preference too.
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.