Cargando…
Clinical effectiveness of rapid tests for methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in hospitalized patients: a systematic review
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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2011
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3259066/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22151575 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-11-336 |
_version_ | 1782221336169414656 |
---|---|
author | Polisena, Julie Chen, Stella Cimon, Karen McGill, Sarah Forward, Kevin Gardam, Michael |
author_facet | Polisena, Julie Chen, Stella Cimon, Karen McGill, Sarah Forward, Kevin Gardam, Michael |
author_sort | Polisena, Julie |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3259066 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2011 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-32590662012-01-17 Clinical effectiveness of rapid tests for methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in hospitalized patients: a systematic review Polisena, Julie Chen, Stella Cimon, Karen McGill, Sarah Forward, Kevin Gardam, Michael BMC Infect Dis Research Article 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. BioMed Central 2011-12-12 /pmc/articles/PMC3259066/ /pubmed/22151575 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-11-336 Text en Copyright ©2011 Polisena et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Polisena, Julie Chen, Stella Cimon, Karen McGill, Sarah Forward, Kevin Gardam, Michael Clinical effectiveness of rapid tests for methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in hospitalized patients: a systematic review |
title | Clinical effectiveness of rapid tests for methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in hospitalized patients: a systematic review |
title_full | Clinical effectiveness of rapid tests for methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in hospitalized patients: a systematic review |
title_fullStr | Clinical effectiveness of rapid tests for methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in hospitalized patients: a systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | Clinical effectiveness of rapid tests for methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in hospitalized patients: a systematic review |
title_short | Clinical effectiveness of rapid tests for methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in hospitalized patients: a systematic review |
title_sort | clinical effectiveness of rapid tests for methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus (mrsa) in hospitalized patients: a systematic review |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3259066/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22151575 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-11-336 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT polisenajulie clinicaleffectivenessofrapidtestsformethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureusmrsainhospitalizedpatientsasystematicreview AT chenstella clinicaleffectivenessofrapidtestsformethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureusmrsainhospitalizedpatientsasystematicreview AT cimonkaren clinicaleffectivenessofrapidtestsformethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureusmrsainhospitalizedpatientsasystematicreview AT mcgillsarah clinicaleffectivenessofrapidtestsformethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureusmrsainhospitalizedpatientsasystematicreview AT forwardkevin clinicaleffectivenessofrapidtestsformethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureusmrsainhospitalizedpatientsasystematicreview AT gardammichael clinicaleffectivenessofrapidtestsformethicillinresistantstaphylococcusaureusmrsainhospitalizedpatientsasystematicreview |