ArticleAnnals of work exposures and health2023
A comparison of passive and active dust sampling methods for measuring airborne methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in pig farms.
Article in Annals of work exposures and health, 2023. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Targeted isolation of bacteria with potential to competitively exclude Staphylococcus aureus in the upper respiratory tract of pigs.BMC microbiology · 2026Article
- Evaluating air cleaner effectiveness in schools: a comprehensive review and protocol of a cluster-randomized controlled trial of physicochemical and microbial markers.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- First record of methicillin-resistantNew microbes and new infections · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Methicillin-resistant strains of Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) are resistant to most β-lactam antibiotics. Pigs are an important reservoir of livestock-associated MRSA (LA-MRSA), which is genetically distinct from both hospital and community-acquired MRSA. Occupational exposure to pigs on farms can lead to LA-MRSA carriage by workers. There is a growing body of research on MRSA found in the farm environment, the airborne route of transmission, and its implication on human health. This study aims to directly compare two sampling methods used to measure airborne MRSA in the farm environment; passive dust sampling with electrostatic dust fall collectors (EDCs), and active inhalable dust sampling using stationary air pumps with Gesamtstaubprobenahme (GSP) sampling heads containing Teflon filters. Paired dust samples using EDCs and GSP samplers, totaling 87 samples, were taken from 7 Dutch pig farms, in multiple compartments housing pigs of varying ages. Total nucleic acids of both types of dust samples were extracted and targets indicating MRSA (femA, nuc, mecA) and total bacterial count (16S rRNA) were quantified using quantitative real-time PCRs. MRSA could be measured from all GSP samples and in 94% of the EDCs, additionally MRSA was present on every farm sampled. There was a strong positive relationship between the paired MRSA levels found in EDCs and those measured on filters (Normalized by 16S rRNA; Pearson's correlation coefficient r = 0.94, Not Normalized; Pearson's correlation coefficient r = 0.84). This study suggests that EDCs can be used as an affordable and easily standardized method for quantifying airborne MRSA levels in the pig farm setting.
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.