A Double‐Blind, Randomized, Controlled Trial of Topical Polysporin Triple Compound Versus Topical Mupirocin for the Eradication of Colonization with Methicillin‐Resistant <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i> in a Complex Continuing Care Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intranasal mupirocin or Polysporin Triple (PT) ointment (polymyxin B, bacitracin, gramicidin), in combination with chlorhexidine body washes, have been used for eradicating methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), but no comparative studies have been done. METHODS: A double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial to compare the efficacy of mupirocin versus PT ointment in combination with chlorhexidine body washes in eradicating MRSA carriage was conducted. Asymptomatic MRSA carriers, medically stable and at least 18 years of age who were patients on medical wards, received twice daily application of either mupirocin or PT ointment to the anterior nares plus once daily 2% chlorhexidine body washes for seven days. Follow-up swabs from multiple sites using broth enrichment were conducted at 48 h, and one, two, four, eight and 12 weeks. RESULTS: Of 103 patients eligible for analysis (54 mupirocin; 49 PT), no significant differences between the two groups with respect to baseline demographics, risk factors for MRSA or MRSA colonization sites were noted. At 48 h, 35 of 54 (65%) patients in the mupirocin group versus 15 of 49 (31%) in the PT group (P=0.001) were found to be MRSA negative at all sites. Significant differences were observed at one and two weeks but were not maintained at other intervals. In those with complete microbiological follow-up, MRSA eradication at all sites occurred in 12 of 39 (30.8%) mupirocin- and one of 36 (2.8%) PT-treated patients (P=0.001). CONCLUSION: Both agents demonstrated poor efficacy and PT was significantly less efficacious than mupirocin at 12 weeks in eradicating MRSA from all sites.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".