Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 799

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Intranasal Mupirocin to Prevent Postoperative Staphylococcus aureus Infections

Open access
Perl, Trish M., Cullen, Joseph J., Wenzel, Richard P., Zimmerman, M. Bridget, Pfaller, Michael A., Sheppard, Deborah, Twombley, Jennifer, French, Pamela P., Herwaldt, Loreen A.·2002·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patients with nasal carriage of Staphylococcus aureus have an increased risk of surgical-site infections caused by that organism. Treatment with mupirocin ointment can reduce the rate of nasal carriage and may prevent postoperative S. aureus infections. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to determine whether intranasal treatment with mupirocin reduces the rate of S. aureus infections at surgical sites and prevents other nosocomial infections. RESULTS: Of 4030 enrolled patients who underwent general, gynecologic, neurologic, or cardiothoracic surgery, 3864 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Overall, 2.3 percent of mupirocin recipients and 2.4 percent of placebo recipients had S. aureus infections at surgical sites. Of the 891 patients (23.1 percent of the 3864 who completed the study) who had S. aureus in their anterior nares, 444 received mupirocin and 447 received placebo. Among the patients with nasal carriage of S. aureus, 4.0 percent of those who received mupirocin had nosocomial S. aureus infections, as compared with 7.7 percent of those who received placebo (odds ratio for infection, 0.49; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.25 to 0.92; P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic intranasal application of mupirocin did not significantly reduce the rate of S. aureus surgical-site infections overall, but it did significantly decrease the rate of all nosocomial S. aureus infections among the patients who were S. aureus carriers.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa003069

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 799

Metadata

Authors
Perl, T. M., Cullen, J. J., Wenzel, R. P., Zimmerman, M. B., Pfaller, M. A., Sheppard, D., Twombley, J., French, P. P., & Herwaldt, L. A.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2002-06-13
Volume
346
Issue
24
Pages
1871-1877
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2012919529
Cited by
799
References
1
FWCI
32.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Intranasal Mupirocin to Prevent Postoperative Staphylococcus aureus Infections. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa003069
The paper
Perl, T. M., Cullen, J. J., Wenzel, R. P., Zimmerman, M. B., Pfaller, M. A., Sheppard, D., Twombley, J., French, P. P., & Herwaldt, L. A. (2002). Intranasal Mupirocin to Prevent Postoperative Staphylococcus aureus Infections. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa003069

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.