ArticleInfection and drug resistance2021
Predictive Role of Targeted, Active Surveillance Cultures for Detection of Methicillin-Resistant
Article in Infection and drug resistance, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Bacterial Carriage and Invasive Infections Among People Who Inject Drugs: Clinical and Molecular Epidemiology in an Australian Prospective Cohort.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Article
- Effectiveness of Pre-Transplant Screening for High-Priority Multidrug-Resistant Pathogens on Pre-Engraftment Infections After Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation.Infection and drug resistance · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMethicillin-resistant
aimThis study determined reliable MRSA screening sites to predict colonisation in resource-limited settings and estimated the impact of missed MRSA cases when shifting from multi- to single-site screening. METHODOLOGY: A cross-sectional study was conducted in patients with positive MRSA surveillance cultures from the routinely screened sites (nasal, axillary, groin, and throat) from January 2009 to December 2019.
resultsA total of 1906 screening tests were positive for MRSA cultures (n = 1345 patients). As a single site, the nasal cavity showed the highest MRSA detection, with a sensitivity of 66.8% (95% CI = 64-69) with 277.9 missed isolation days. Screening three or more anatomical sites detected 97-100% of MRSA cases, with 0-24.5 missed isolation days. Screening the axilla and groin separately or in combination showed a good clinical utility index (CUI) of >0.6 to <0.8, while an excellent CUI was obtained upon screening other site samples (>0.8). The combined nasal and throat cultures demonstrated a sensitivity of 93.2 (95% CI = 91-94) with 57.2 missed isolation days.
conclusionMulti-site screening is the optimal strategy for minimising MRSA exposure within a healthcare facility. For active MRSA surveillance, a combination of nasal and throat cultures can provide a practical approach in low-resource settings compared to nasal sampling alone.
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.