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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Nasal Carriage as a Source of Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia
von Eiff, C., Becker, K., Machka, K., Stammer, H., & Peters, G. (2001) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200101043440102 · Cited by 1,984
Cited by
The role of nasal carriage in Staphylococcus aureus infections
Wertheim, H. F., Melles, D. C., Vos, M. C., van Leeuwen, W., van Belkum, A., Verbrugh, H. A., & Nouwen, J. L. (2005) · The Lancet Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(05)70295-4 · Cited by 2,685
Antimicrobial resistance: the example of Staphylococcus aureus
Lowy, F. D. (2003) · Journal of Clinical Investigation · doi:10.1172/jci18535 · Cited by 1,445
Bratzler, D. W., & Houck, P. M. (2005) · The American Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.01.015 · Cited by 1,163
Iwase, T., Uehara, Y., Shinji, H., Tajima, A., Seo, H., Takada, K., Agata, T., & Mizunoe, Y. (2010) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature09074 · Cited by 991
Allegranzi, B., Bischoff, P., de Jonge, S., Kubilay, N. Z., Zayed, B., Gomes, S. M., Abbas, M., Atema, J. J., Gans, S., van Rijen, M., et al. (2016) · The Lancet Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(16)30398-x · Cited by 908
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
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- 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.