ArticleInfectious diseases and therapy2022
International Validation of a Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Risk Assessment Tool for Skin and Soft Tissue Infections.
Article in Infectious diseases and therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence of nosocomial infections and antibiotic resistance patterns in Iranian hospitals over five years.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Machine Learning Models to Establish the Risk of Being a Carrier of Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria upon Admission to the ICU.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comparative Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes of Candida (Candidozyma) auris vs. Non-C. auris Candidemia in Non-neutropenic Patients in South India.Mycopathologia · 2025Article
- Factors and clinical prediction score for complication development after cellulitis diagnosis in adult patients.International journal of emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Description ofHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- In Vitro Activity of Ceftaroline and Comparators against Bacterial Isolates Collected Globally from Patients with Skin and Soft Tissue Infections: ATLAS Program 2019-2020.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 8 institutions in 7 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo promote judicious prescribing of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)-active therapy for skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI), we previously developed an MRSA risk assessment tool. The objective of this study was to validate this risk assessment tool internationally.
methodsA multicenter, prospective cohort study of adults with purulent SSTI was performed at seven international sites from July 2016 to March 2018. Patient MRSA risk scores were computed as follows: MRSA infection/colonization history (2 points); previous hospitalization, previous antibiotics, chronic kidney disease, intravenous drug use, human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS), diabetes with obesity (1 point each). Predictive performance of MRSA surveillance percentage, MRSA risk score, and estimated MRSA probability (surveillance percentage adjusted by risk score) were quantified using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (aROC) and compared. Performance characteristics of different risk score thresholds across varying baseline MRSA prevalence were examined.
resultsTwo hundred three patients were included. Common SSTI were wounds (28.6%), abscess (25.1%), and cellulitis with abscess (20.7%). Patients with higher risk scores were more likely to have MRSA (P < 0.001). The MRSA risk score aROC (95%CI) [0.748 (0.678-0.819)] was significantly greater than MRSA surveillance percentage [0.646 (0.569-0.722)] (P = 0.016). Estimated MRSA probability aROC [0.781 (0.716-0.845)] was significantly greater than surveillance percentage (P < 0.001) but not the risk score (P = 0.192). The estimated negative predictive value (NPV) of an MRSA score ≥ 1 (i.e., a score of 0) was greater than 90% when MRSA prevalence was 30% or less.
conclusionThe MRSA risk score and estimated MRSA probability were significantly more predictive of MRSA compared with surveillance percentage. An MRSA risk score of zero had high predictive value and could help avoid unnecessary empiric MRSA coverage in low-acuity patients. Further study, including impact of such risk assessment tools on prescribing patterns and outcomes are required before implementation.
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.