MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3202360660 · doi:10.3138/jammi-2020-0049

Randomized controlled trial of chlorhexidine gluconate, intranasal mupirocin, rifampin, and doxycycline versus chlorhexidine gluconate and intranasal mupirocin alone for the eradication of methicillin-resistant <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i> (MRSA) colonization

2021· article· en· W3202360660 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Lucy Y Eum, Stefanie Materniak, Paula Duffley, Sameh El-Bailey, George R. Golding, Duncan Webster

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntimicrobial Resistance in Staphylococcus
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaHorizon Health NetworkSaint John Regional HospitalDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMupirocinMedicineNasal administrationDoxycyclineChlorhexidine gluconateChlorhexidineMethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureusStaphylococcus aureusMicrobiologyAntibioticsBacteriaPharmacologyDentistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Several decolonization regimens have been studied to prevent recurrent methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections. Clinical equipoise remains with regard to the role of MRSA decolonization. We compared initial MRSA clearance and subsequent MRSA recolonization rates over a 12-month period after standard decolonization (using topical chlorhexidine gluconate, and intranasal mupirocin) or systemic decolonization (using topical chlorhexidine gluconate, intranasal mupirocin, oral rifampin, and oral doxycycline). Methods: MRSA-colonized patients were randomized to receive either standard or systemic decolonization. Follow-up with MRSA screening was obtained at approximately 3, 6, and 12 months after completion of therapy. Kaplan–Meier survival curves were calculated and assessed for significant differences using log-rank tests. Results: Of 98 enrolled patients (25 standard decolonization, 73 systemic decolonization), 24 patients (7 standard decolonization, 17 systemic decolonization) did not complete the study. Univariate analysis showed a marginally significant difference in the probability of remaining MRSA-negative post-treatment ( p = 0.043); patients who received standard decolonization had a 31.9% chance of remaining MRSA-negative compared with a 49.9% chance among those who received systemic decolonization. With multivariate analysis, there was no difference in the probability of remaining MRSA-negative between systemic and standard decolonization ( p = 0.165). Initial MRSA clearance was more readily achieved with systemic decolonization (79.1%; 95% CI 32.4% to 71.6%) than with standard decolonization (52.0%; 95% CI 69.4% to 88.8%; p = 0.0102). Conclusions: Initial MRSA clearance is more readily achieved with systemic decolonization than with standard decolonization. There is no significant difference in the probability of sustained MRSA clearance.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease CanadaSame topicAntimicrobial Resistance in StaphylococcusFrench-language works237,207