ArticleFuture science OA2022
Methicillin-resistant
Article in Future science OA, 2022. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence and associated risk factors of Staphylococcus aureus nasal colonization among a cohort of immunocompromised individuals in Lagos, Nigeria.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Substantial co-trimoxazole resistant S. aureus nasal carriage despite low colonization among people living with HIV in Ethiopia.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria in Immunocompromised Patients.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Assessment of handwashing impact on detection of SARS-CoV-2, Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli on hands in rural and urban settings of Côte d'Ivoire during COVID-19 pandemic.BMC public health · 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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis study aimed to compare methicillin-resistant
methodsMRSA isolated from 400 nasal swabs was screened using a cefoxitin disc and confirmed by the presence of the
resultsMRSA nasal carriers among the PLHIV and control cohorts were 3.5% (7 out of 200) and 5.0% (10 out of 200), respectively. All the MRSA from PLHIV and most of MRSA from healthy controls were
conclusionThere is no significant difference in MRSA nasal colonization in PLHIV and healthy controls in this study region.
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.