ArticleInfection prevention in practice2025
Assessment of Methicillin-Resistant
Article in Infection prevention in practice, 2025. 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.
- Knowledge, Attitude, and the Practice in Nosocomial Infection Control Among Afghan Healthcare Workers in Herat Afghanistan: A Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Emerging therapeutic drug targets in amino acid and protein biosynthesis pathways against ESKAPE and non-ESKAPE pathogens: a comprehensive review.Archives of microbiology · 2026Review
- Explainable Machine Learning Integrating Patient and Environmental Factors for Predicting Multidrug-Resistant Organism Colonization or Infection on ICU Admission.Infection and drug resistance · 2026Article
- MRSA: the enduring foe.Infection prevention in practice · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Methicillin-Resistant Objective: This study aims to assess the knowledge and awareness of MRSA risks, prevention methods (such as hand hygiene), proper antibiotics use, and multidrug resistance among various groups of healthcare workers (HCWs) in Southern Lebanon. Methods: A total of 244 HCWs, including those in medical services (MS), paramedical services (PS), and non-medical services (NMS), were conveniently selected for this study. Data was gathered using a structured, validated questionnaire that explored their knowledge and awareness of MRSA risks, prevention measures, hand hygiene practices, and multidrug resistance. Results: The findings revealed that 68% of HCWs were aware of the origin of MRSA infection, and 61.5% and 51.6% were familiar with its treatment and transmission, respectively. Only 24.2% of HCWs were able to differentiate between hospital-acquired and community-acquired MRSA, 14.7% were aware of the institution's written MRSA control protocols, and 17.6% had heard of MRSA infections. Notably, knowledge and hand hygiene practices were significantly better among MS HCWs than PS and NMS groups ( Conclusion: HCWs in South-Lebanon demonstrated a knowledge gap regarding MRSA risks and prevention guidelines. These findings underscore the need for targeted educational intervention on MRSA, as well as coordinated efforts by healthcare authorities and centres to control MRSA infections.
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.