ArticleAntimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE2024
Evaluation of methicillin-resistant
Article in Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study is to determine the predictive values of MRSA swab screenings in patients with cancer. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort observational study of adult patients admitted to The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center between January 2019 and October 2022. Data collected from patients with documented MRSA nasal swab screenings and clinical cultures taken within 7 days were collected. The first documented MRSA swab screening and culture results from unique patients were included for analysis to calculate sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and NPV. Results: A total of 6475 patients with MRSA nasal swab cultures had 13129 clinical cultures from different anatomical sites. Of the patients included, 57% had a solid tumor and 37% had a hematological malignancy, with 82% of patients receiving an anti-MRSA antibiotic prior to MRSA nasal swab. There were 167 documented positive MRSA cultures, most commonly from a wound (41.3%) or respiratory source (24%). Overall sensitivity and specificity for all culture sites were 50.9% and 98.4%, respectively, with an overall NPV of 99.4%. The NPV was 99.8% for bloodstream infections, 98.5% for respiratory infections, 92.6% for wound infections, and greater than 99% for other culture sites. Conclusion: The specificity and negative predictive value of MRSA swab screenings in patients with cancer was high overall and consistent with the literature in immunocompetent patients. These results may aid in antimicrobial stewardship activities that can help guide the discontinuation of empiric antibiotics in patients with cancer.
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.