ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2021
Nasal Methicillin-Resistant
Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2021. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Community carriage of methicillin-resistant staphylococci among migrant communities living in Klang Valley, Malaysia.IJID regions · 2026Article
- Cross-sectional survey of resistant priority pathogen carriage in the hospital setting in Timor-Leste 2020-2021.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2026Article
- Nasal Methicillin-ResistantMicroorganisms · 2021Article
- Detection, spread and phylogeny of meticillin-resistantMicrobial genomics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn 2012, we identified the dissemination of methicillin-resistant
methodsA cross-sectional study involving a total of 1935 foreign workers-929 (arrival group) and 1006 (staying group)-from Vietnam (n = 843), Indonesia (n = 780), the Philippines (n = 239), and Thailand (n = 70) were conveniently recruited during upon-arrival and regular health examination in a regional hospital. A nasal swab was obtained from each participant for detection of MRSA.
resultsOverall, MRSA carriage rate was 2.72%, with 2.26% for arrival group and 3.18% for staying group, and 4.74% for Vietnamese, 1.28% for Indonesians, 1.26% for Filipino, and none for Thai workers. Pulsotype AK/ST45 (57%) and pulsotype AX/ST188 (14%) were the top 2 dominant clones for the arrival group, whereas pulsotype D/ST59 (41%) (an endemic community clone in Taiwan) and pulsotype AK/ST45 (19%) were predominant for the staying group. A significant decrease of pulsotype AK/ST45 from 57% to 19% (
conclusionsApproximately 3% of foreign workers recruited from Southeastern Asian countries to Taiwan were colonized with MRSA, including the ST45 strain. However, the MRSA isolates from workers staying in Taiwan were mostly a locally endemic clone and genetically different from those identified from workers on arrival.
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.