Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction Detection of Methicillin-Resistant<i>Staphylococcus aureus:</i>Impact on Nosocomial Transmission and Costs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) on nosocomial transmission and costs. DESIGN: Monthly MRSA detection rates were measured from April 1, 2000, through December 31, 2005. Time series analysis was used to identify changes in MRSA detection rates, and decision analysis was used to compare the costs of detection by PCR and by culture.Setting. A 1,200-bed, tertiary care hospital in Canada. PATIENTS: Admitted patients at high risk for MRSA colonization. MRSA detection using culture-based screening was compared with a commercial PCR assay. RESULTS: The mean monthly incidence of nosocomial MRSA colonization or infection was 0.37 cases per 1,000 patient-days. The time-series model indicated an insignificant decrease of 0.14 cases per 1,000 patient-days per month (95% confidence interval, -0.18 to 0.46) after the introduction of PCR detection (P=.39). The mean interval from a reported positive result until contact precautions were initiated decreased from 3.8 to 1.6 days (P<.001). However, the cost of MRSA control increased from Can$605,034 to Can$771,609. Of 290 PCR-positive patients, 120 (41.4%) were placed under contact precautions unnecessarily because of low specificity of the PCR assay used in the study; these patients contributed 37% of the increased cost. The modeling study predicted that the cost per patient would be higher with detection by PCR (Can$96) than by culture (Can$67). CONCLUSION: Detection of MRSA by the PCR assay evaluated in this study was more costly than detection by culture for reducing MRSA transmission in our hospital. The cost benefit of screening by PCR varies according to incidences of MRSA colonization and infection, the predictive values of the assay used, and rates of compliance with infection control measures.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".