Cited by 111Antimicrobial Resistance in StaphylococcusInfection Control in HealthcareSurgical site infection prevention

MRSA colonization and the risk of MRSA bacteraemia in hospitalized patients with chronic ulcers

Roghmann, M.-C., Siddiqui, A., Plaisance, K., Standiford, H.·2001·Journal of Hospital Infection

Abstract

A cohort study of patients with chronic ulcers was performed to estimate the risk of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteraemia in a population colonized with MRSA. During a five-year period (January 1990-May 1995), 911 patients with chronic ulcers (CU), as determined by ICD9-CM code search, were admitted to an acute care hospital. Sixty percent (545/911) of these patients with CU had their CU cultured to detect MRSA and 30% (166/545) of these were colonized with MRSA. Among patients with surveillance cultures, those with MRSA colonization had significantly more days of hospitalization and were also more likely to have a central venous catheter during hospitalization compared with patients without MRSA colonization. MRSA bacteraemia occurred in 4% (36/911) of CU patients during the study period and in 6% (32/545) of cultured CU patients. Among the 545 patients who had surveillance cultures, the risk ratio for MRSA bacteraemia when there was MRSA colonization of their chronic ulcer was 16 (95% CI 6-45). Among patients with MRSA colonization, central venous catheter use was the only significant risk factor for MRSA bacteraemia. In 16 of the 28 patients with MRSA bacteraemia and MRSA colonization, the MRSA colonization was identified more than seven days before the bacteraemia. This cohort study identifies MRSA colonized CU patients in an acute care setting as a high-risk population for MRSA bacteraemia.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1053/jhin.2000.0903

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Roghmann, M.-C., Siddiqui, A., Plaisance, K., & Standiford, H.
Affiliations
University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
Venue
Journal of Hospital Infection
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2001-02
Volume
47
Issue
2
Pages
98-103
ISSN
0195-6701 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1991744977
Cited by
111
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 7
FWCI
4.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Hospital Infection (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antimicrobial Resistance in Staphylococcus
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Infection Control in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Surgical site infection prevention
Keywords
MRSA colonization, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, MRSA bacteremia, chronic ulcers, central venous catheters, risk factors, hospitalized patients, surveillance cultures, acute care
MeSH terms
Carrier State, Catheterization, Central Venous, Chronic Disease, Cross Infection, Pressure Ulcer, Female, Hospitalization, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Staphylococcal Infections, Staphylococcus aureus, Varicose Ulcer, Wound Infection, Cohort Studies, Methicillin Resistance, Bacteremia, Infection Control, Diabetic Foot

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