ArticleInfection control and hospital epidemiology2020
Burden of perianal
Article in Infection control and hospital epidemiology, 2020. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transfer ofOpen forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Hand and environmental hygiene: respective roles for MRSA, multi-resistant gram negatives, Clostridioides difficile, and Candida spp.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2024Review
- Silver Nanoparticles and Graphene Oxide Complex as an Anti-Inflammatory Biocompatible Liquid Nano-Dressing for Skin Infected withJournal of inflammation research · 2023Article
- Can alternative anatomical sites and environmental surveillance replace perianal screening for multidrug-resistant organisms in nursing homes?Infection control and hospital epidemiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the effect of the burden of Staphylococcus aureus colonization of nursing home residents on the risk of S. aureus transmission to healthcare worker (HCW) gowns and gloves.
designMulticenter prospective cohort study. SETTING AND
participantsResidents and HCWs from 13 community-based nursing homes in Maryland and Michigan.
methodsResidents were cultured for S. aureus at the anterior nares and perianal skin. The S. aureus burden was estimated by quantitative polymerase chain reaction detecting the nuc gene. HCWs wore gowns and gloves during usual care activities; gowns and gloves were swabbed and then cultured for the presence of S. aureus.
resultsIn total, 403 residents were enrolled; 169 were colonized with methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) or methicillin-sensitive S. aureus (MSSA) and comprised the study population; 232 were not colonized and thus were excluded from this analysis; and 2 were withdrawn prior to being swabbed. After multivariable analysis, perianal colonization with S. aureus conferred the greatest odds for transmission to HCW gowns and gloves, and the odds increased with increasing burden of colonization: adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 2.1 (95% CI, 1.3-3.5) for low-level colonization and aOR 5.2 (95% CI, 3.1-8.7) for high level colonization.
conclusionsAmong nursing home patients colonized with S. aureus, the risk of transmission to HCW gowns and gloves was greater from those colonized with greater quantities of S. aureus on the perianal skin. Our findings inform future infection control practices for both MRSA and MSSA in nursing homes.
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.