ArticleBMJ open2018
Prevalence and risk factors of MRSA colonisations: a cross-sectional study among personnel in outpatient care settings in Hamburg, Germany.
Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The prevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus among diabetic patients: a meta-analysis.Acta diabetologica · 2019Pooled it
- Occupational Infection Risk with Multidrug-Resistant Organisms in Health Personnel-A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Pooled it
- [Therapy-relevant antibiotic resistances in a One Health context].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2023Review
- Article
- Transmission and Long-Term Colonization Patterns ofInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Infections in Healthcare Workers in Germany-22-Year Time Trends.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesHealthcare workers frequently come into contact with infected individuals and are at a greater risk of infection than the general population due to their occupation. Multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) also pose a significant challenge for personnel and medical facilities. Currently, little is known about the occupational risk of methicillin-resistant
methodsMRSA screening with nasal swabs was carried out, the known risk factors for colonisation were determined and information on infection control was inquired. Where tests were positive, a control swab was taken; if this confirmed a positive result, decolonisation was offered. A molecular biological examination of the MRSA samples was performed. The occupational MRSA exposure and risk factors were compared with the situation for personnel in inpatient geriatric care.
resultsA total of 39 outpatient services participated in the study and 579 employees were tested. The MRSA prevalence was 1.2% in all and 1.7% in nursing staff. Most of the employees that tested positive had close or known contact with MRSA patients. Health personnel frequently reported personal protective measures and their application. Compared with inpatient care staff, outpatient staff were older and had worked in their profession for a longer time.
conclusionThis study marks the first time that data has been made available on the occupational MRSA risk of outpatient care personnel in Hamburg. The MRSA prevalence is low and provides a good basis for describing the MRSA risk of occupational exposure by health personnel in outpatient care.
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.