Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 369

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Epidemiology and Clonality of Community‐Acquired Methicillin‐Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Minnesota, 1996–1998

Naimi, Timothy S., LeDell, Kathleen H., Boxrud, David J., Groom, Amy V., Steward, Christine D., Johnson, Susan K., Besser, John M., O’Boyle, Carol, Danila, Richard N., Cheek, James E., Osterholm, Michael T., Moore, Kristine A., Smith, Kirk E.·2001·Clinical Infectious Diseases
DOI 10.1086/322693
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has emerged among patients in the general population who do not have established risk factors for MRSA. Records from 10 Minnesota health facilities were reviewed to identify cases of MRSA infection that occurred during 1996-1998 and to identify which cases were community acquired. Susceptibility testing and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) subtyping were performed on available isolates. A total of 354 patients (median age, 16 years) with community-acquired MRSA (CAMRSA) infection were identified. Most case patients (299 [84%]) had skin infections, and 103 (29%) were hospitalized. More than 90% of isolates were susceptible to all antimicrobial agents tested, with the exception of beta-lactams and erythromycin. Of 334 patients treated with antimicrobial agents, 282 (84%) initially were treated with agents to which their isolates were nonsusceptible. Of 174 Minnesota isolates tested, 150 (86%) belonged to 1 PFGE clonal group. CAMRSA infections were identified throughout Minnesota; although most isolates were genetically related and susceptible to multiple antimicrobials, they were generally nonsusceptible to initial empirical therapy.

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 · 10.1086/322693

Cites

31 of 31 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 31 references

Cited by

See all 369

Metadata

Authors
Naimi, T. S., LeDell, K. H., Boxrud, D. J., Groom, A. V., Steward, C. D., Johnson, S. K., Besser, J. M., O’Boyle, C., Danila, R. N., Cheek, J. E., Osterholm, M. T., Moore, K. A., & Smith, K. E.
Venue
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2001-10
Volume
33
Issue
7
Pages
990-996
ISSN
  • 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-6591
DOI
10.1086/322693
OpenAlex
W2155193009
Cited by
369
References
31
FWCI
19.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Epidemiology and Clonality of Community‐Acquired Methicillin‐Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Minnesota, 1996–1998. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/322693
The paper
Naimi, T. S., LeDell, K. H., Boxrud, D. J., Groom, A. V., Steward, C. D., Johnson, S. K., Besser, J. M., O’Boyle, C., Danila, R. N., Cheek, J. E., Osterholm, M. T., Moore, K. A., & Smith, K. E. (2001). Epidemiology and Clonality of Community‐Acquired Methicillin‐Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Minnesota, 1996–1998. Clinical Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1086/322693

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.