ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2025
Methicillin-resistant
Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 2025. 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.
- Prevention and Treatment ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Given the support for methicillin-resistant Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of all patients aged ≥ 18 years presenting to 5 emergency departments within a university-based health system who were given intravenous (IV) vancomycin during their ED index visit. The primary outcome assessed the proportion of patients with MRSA-positive blood cultures who received IV vancomycin in the ED. We also measured associations between clinical attributes associated with any MRSA infection. Results: Of the 20,212 unique ED visits for patients who received IV vancomycin, 63% (n = 12,755) had at least 1 MRSA risk factor. Only 2.4% (n = 494) and 14.1% (n = 2850) of patients receiving IV vancomycin in the ED were found to have MRSA bacteremia or any MRSA-positive culture, respectively. A total of 3160 patients met Sepsis-3 criteria and received IV vancomycin, though 65% (n = 2064) had no MRSA risk factors. For any patient with culture-proven MRSA, 63.8% (n = 315) and 43.4% (n = 1236) received an MRSA antimicrobial in the ED. MRSA risk factors were not associated with MRSA bacteremia (≥1 MRSA risk factor: odds ratio, 1.3, 95% CI, 0.9-1.8) or an MRSA-positive culture of any type (odds ratio, 0.9, 95% CI, 0.7-1.1). Conclusion: Within our hospital system, MRSA was an infrequent cause of bacteremia for patients presenting to the ED with sepsis or septic shock. Although vancomycin is frequently used in the ED, many patients with culture-proven MRSA did not receive MRSA antimicrobials. Notably, one-third of patients with culture-proven MRSA had no MRSA risk factors. MRSA risk factors were not predictive of culture-proven MRSA, thus highlighting the complexity of antimicrobial stewardship in the ED without validated clinical decision rules.
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.