MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997799986 · doi:10.1186/1471-2334-11-336

Clinical effectiveness of rapid tests for methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus(MRSA) in hospitalized patients: a systematic review

2011· review· en· W1997799986 on OpenAlexaff
Julie Polisena, Stella Chen, Karen Cimon, Sarah McGill, Kevin R. Forward, Michael Gardam

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Infectious Diseases · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntimicrobial Resistance in Staphylococcus
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkDalhousie UniversityCanadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical microbiologyMethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureusStaphylococcus aureusMedicineParasitologyMicrobiologyStaphylococcal infectionsIntensive care medicineBiologyPathologyImmunologyBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) are often resistant to multiple classes of antibiotics. The research objectives of this systematic review were to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) versus chromogenic agar for MRSA screening, and PCR versus no screening for several clinical outcomes, including MRSA colonization and infection rates. METHODS: An electronic literature search was conducted on studies evaluating polymerase chain reaction techniques and methicillin (also spelled meticillin) resistant Staphylococcus aureus that were published from 1993 onwards using Medline, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, BIOSIS Previews, and EMBASE. Due to the presence of heterogeneity in the selected studies, the clinical findings of individual studies were described. RESULTS: Nine studies that compared screening for MRSA using PCR versus screening using chromogenic agar in a hospital setting, and two studies that compared screening using PCR with no or targeted screening were identified. Some studies found lower MRSA colonization and acquisition, infection, and transmission rates in screening with PCR versus screening with chromogenic agar, and the turnaround time for screening test results was lower for PCR. One study reported a lower number of unnecessary isolation days with screening using PCR versus screening with chromogenic agar, but the proportion of patients isolated was similar between both groups. The turnaround time for test results and number of isolation days were lower for PCR versus chromogenic agar for MRSA screening. CONCLUSIONS: The use of PCR for MRSA screening demonstrated a lower turnaround time and number of isolation days compared with chromogenic agar. Given the mixed quality and number of studies (11 studies), gaps remain in the published literature and the evidence remains insufficient. In addition to screening, factors such as the number of contacts between healthcare workers and patients, number of patients attended by one healthcare worker per day, probability of colonization among healthcare workers, and MRSA status of hospital shared equipment and hospital environment must be considered to control the transmission of MRSA in a hospital setting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.009
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.330 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations62
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Infectious DiseasesSame topicAntimicrobial Resistance in StaphylococcusFrench-language works237,207