ArticleInfection prevention in practice2019
Reducing transmission of methicillin-resistant
Article in Infection prevention in practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Occurrence, multidrug resistance and potential risk factors forFrontiers in public health · 2024Pooled it
- Diversity and Dissemination of Methicillin-ResistantTropical medicine and infectious disease · 2022Review
- Dangerous Pathogens as a Potential Problem for Public Health.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMethicillin-resistant
aimTo evaluate the effect of a bundle of preventive measures on the transmission and acquisition of MRSA in a surgical ward of a resource-limited hospital in Indonesia.
methodsThe study consisted of a pre-intervention (7 months), intervention (2 months), and post-intervention phase (5 months) and included screening for MRSA among eligible patients, healthcare workers (HCWs), and the hospital environment. In the intervention phase, a bundle of preventive actions was introduced, comprising: a hand hygiene educational program, cohorting of MRSA-positive patients, decolonization therapy for all MRSA-positive patients and HCWs, and cleaning and disinfection of the ward's innate environment. Hand hygiene compliance was assessed throughout the study period. The primary outcome was the acquisition rate of MRSA among patients per 1,000 patient-days at risk. Clonality of MRSA isolates was determined by Raman spectroscopy and multilocus sequence typing.
findingsIn total, 1,120 patients were included. Hand hygiene compliance rate rose from 15% pre-intervention to 65% post-intervention (
conclusionThe introduction of a bundle of preventive measures may reduce MRSA transmission and acquisition among surgery patients in a resource-limited hospital in Indonesia, but additional efforts are needed.
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.