ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020
Assessing the Potential Impact of a Long-Acting SkinDisinfectant in the Prevention of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Transmission.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Moana: Alternate surveillance for COVID-19 in a Unique Population (MASC-UP).Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Healthcare-associated transmission of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)remains a persistent problem. The use of chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) as a means of decolonizingpatients, either through targeted decolonization or daily bathing, is frequently used to supplementother interventions. We explore the potential of a long-acting disinfectant with a persistent effect,immediate decolonizing action in the prevention of MRSA acquisition, and clinical illness andmortality in an 18-bed intensive care unit, based on a previous model. A scenario with nointervention is compared to CHG bathing, which decolonizes patients but provides no additionalprotection, and a hypothetical treatment that both decolonizes them and provides protection fromsubsequent colonization. The duration and effectiveness of this protection is varied to fully explorethe potential utility of such a treatment. Increasing the effectiveness of the decolonizing agentreduces colonization, with a 10% increase resulting in a colonization rate ratio (RR) of 0.89 (95% CI:0.89,0.90). Increasing the duration of protection results in a much more modest reduction, with a 12-hour increase in protection resulting in an RR of 0.99 (95% CI: 0.99, 0.99). There is little evidence ofsynergy between the two.
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.