• Am J Infect Control · Feb 2014

    Review

    Screening for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a comparative effectiveness review.

    • Susan B Glick, David J Samson, Elbert S Huang, Vikrant Vats, Naomi Aronson, and Stephen G Weber.
    • Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL. Electronic address: sglick@uchicago.edu.
    • Am J Infect Control. 2014 Feb 1; 42 (2): 148-55.

    BackgroundMethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is an important cause of health care-associated infections. Although the evidence in support of MRSA screening has been promising, a number of questions remain about the effectiveness of active surveillance.MethodsWe searched the literature for studies that examined MRSA acquisition, MRSA infection, morbidity, mortality, harms of screening, and resource utilization when screening for MRSA carriage was compared with no screening or with targeted screening. Because of heterogeneity of the data and weaknesses in study design, meta-analysis was not performed. Strength of evidence (SOE) was determined using the system developed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group.ResultsOne randomized controlled trial and 47 quasi-experimental studies met our inclusion criteria. We focused on the 14 studies that addressed health care-associated outcomes and that attempted to control for confounding and/or secular trends, because those studies had the potential to support causal inferences. With universal screening for MRSA carriage compared with no screening, 2 large quasi-experimental studies found reductions in health care-associated MRSA infection. The SOE for this finding is low. For each of the other screening strategies evaluated, this review found insufficient evidence to determine the comparative effectiveness of screening.ConclusionsAlthough there is low SOE that universal screening of hospital patients decreases MRSA infection, there is insufficient evidence to determine the consequences of universal screening or the effectiveness of other screening strategies.Copyright © 2014 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.