ArticleAntimicrobial resistance and infection control2019
Susceptibility of livestock-associated methicillin-resistant
Article in Antimicrobial resistance and infection control, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Evidence for the Use of Octenidine Dihydrochloride to Prevent Healthcare-Associated Infections and DecreasePathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Increasing usage of chlorhexidine in health care settings: blessing or curse? A narrative review of the risk of chlorhexidine resistance and the implications for infection prevention and control.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2022Review
- Correction to: Susceptibility of livestock-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (LA-MRSA) to chlorhexidine digluconate, octenidine dihydrochloride, polyhexanide, PVP-iodine and triclosan in comparison to hospital-acquired MRSA (HA-MRSA) and community-aquired MRSA (CA-MRSA): a standardized comparison.Antimicrobial resistance and infection controlArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Recent publications have raised concerns of reduced susceptibilities of clinical bacterial isolates towards biocides. This study presents a comparative investigation of the susceptibility of livestock-associated Methicillin-resistant Methods: In total, 28 (18 LA-, 5 HA- and 5 CA) genetically characterized MRSA strains representing a broad spectrum of hosts, clonal complexes and spa-types, as well as the reference methicillin-sensitive Results: Results from the MIC/MBC and quantitative suspension tests revealed differences between antiseptic substances but not between epidemiological groups of MRSA strains. OCT and PHMB were the most active substances with a minimal MIC of 1 mg/L, followed by CHX (2 mg/L), TCX (32 mg/L) and finally PVP-I (1024 mg/L). The MSSA reference strain showed a tendency to a higher susceptibility compared to the MRSA strains. Conclusions: This investigation of the susceptibility of a range of LA-, HA- and CA-MRSA strains using standardized conditions gave no indication that LA-MRSA strains are less susceptible to commonly used antiseptics compared to HA- and CA-MRSA strains.
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.