A systematic review of the evidence for interventions for the prevention and control of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (1996–2004): report to the Joint MRSA Working Party (Subgroup A).
Abstract
A systematic review was undertaken of the evidence published between 1996 and 2004 on the effectiveness, and associated economic costs, of a range of interventions to prevent and control the transmission of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in hospital settings. The review questions focused on screening, patient isolation, use of decolonization strategies, feedback of surveillance data, and environmental hygiene interventions. The reviewers assessed evidence from four recent systematic reviews, 24 non-experimental descriptive studies, five economic evaluations and one recently revised international guideline. The methodological quality of studies retrieved was such that there is currently insufficient high-quality evidence for infection prevention and control interventions in the fields identified for this review. However, evidence from clinically based, non-experimental studies does provide support for the continued use of a range and combination of interventions that contribute to the prevention and control of MRSA within acute hospitals and long-term-care settings. Well-conducted economic evaluations reporting the economic benefits arising from infection prevention and control interventions are lacking.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Decolonization measures in MRSA-colonized patients have not demonstrated long-term effectiveness.
“Although decolonization measures in MRSA-colonized patients have not demonstrated long-term effectiveness (17),”
From Postpartum Mastitis and Community-acquired Methicillin-resistant<i>Staphylococcus aureus</i> (2007) · cites this paper as [17]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
David, M. Z., & Daum, R. S. (2010) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.00081-09 · Cited by 1,972 · see citing works
Postpartum Mastitis and Community-acquired Methicillin-resistant<i>Staphylococcus aureus</i>
Reddy, P., Qi, C., Zembower, T., Noskin, G. A., & Bolon, M. (2007) · Emerging Infectious Diseases · doi:10.3201/eid1302.060989 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
- Authors
- Loveday, H. P., Pellowe, C. M., Jones, S. R. L. J., & Pratt, R. J.
- Affiliations
- University of West London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Pratt, R.J.
- ORCID
- Loveday, H.P.
- Venue
- Journal of Hospital Infection
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2006-05
- Volume
- 63
- Pages
- S45-S70
- ISSN
- 0195-6701 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2078466069
- Cited by
- 111
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 1.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Hospital Infection (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Government of the United Kingdom
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antimicrobial Resistance in Staphylococcus
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Infection Control in Healthcare
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology › Antibiotic Use and Resistance
- Keywords
- methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, MRSA transmission, infection control, hospital settings, screening, patient isolation, decolonization, environmental hygiene, economic evaluation, long-term care, acute care hospitals
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cross Infection, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Isolation, Staphylococcal Infections, Staphylococcus aureus, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Methicillin Resistance, Infection Control, Guidelines as Topic
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review