The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Community‐Acquired Methicillin‐Resistant Staphylococcus aureus:A Meta‐Analysis of Prevalence and Risk Factors
Abstract
Reports suggest that carriage of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) among persons without health care-associated risks has increased. A meta-analysis of studies reporting the prevalence of community-acquired MRSA (CA-MRSA) among MRSA isolates from hospitalized patients or the prevalence of MRSA colonization among community members was conducted. The CA-MRSA prevalence among hospital MRSA was 30.2% in 27 retrospective studies and 37.3% in 5 prospective studies; 85% of all patients with CA-MRSA had > or =1 health care-associated risk. The pooled MRSA colonization rate among community members was 1.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04%-1.53%), but there was significant heterogeneity among study populations. Community members from whom samples were obtained in health care facilities were more likely to be carrying MRSA than were community members from whom samples were obtained outside of the health care setting (relative risk, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.56-3.53). Among studies that excluded persons with health care contacts, the MRSA prevalence was 0.2%. Moreover, most persons with CA-MRSA had > or =1 health care-associated risk, which suggests that the prevalence of MRSA among persons without risks remains low (< or =0.24%). Effective control of dissemination of MRSA throughout the community likely will require effective control of nosocomial MRSA transmission.
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
Lindenmayer, J. M., Schoenfeld, S., O'Grady, R., & Carney, J. K. (1998) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.158.8.895 · Cited by 298
Charlebois, E. D., Bangsberg, D. R., Moss, N. J., Moore, M. R., Moss, A. R., Chambers, H. F., & Perdreau-Remington, F. (2002) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1086/338069 · Cited by 245 · cited 3×
“Compared with individuals who were not in a semiclosed community [48, 56], these persons were 36 times more likely to carry MRSA (95% CI, 13.”
Background
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
David, M. Z., & Daum, R. S. (2010) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.00081-09 · Cited by 1,972
Baddour, L. M., Wilson, W. R., Bayer, A. S., Fowler, V. G., Bolger, A. F., Levison, M. E., Ferrieri, P., Gerber, M. A., Tani, L. Y., Gewitz, M. H., et al. (2005) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.105.165564 · Cited by 1,707
Trends in antimicrobial drug development: Implications for the future
Spellberg, B., Powers, J. H., Brass, E. P., Miller, L. G., & Edwards, J. E. (2004) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1086/420937 · Cited by 867
Community-acquired meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: an emerging threat
Zetola, N., Francis, J. S., Nuermberger, E. L., & Bishai, W. R. (2005) · The Lancet Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(05)70112-2 · Cited by 791
Metadata
- Authors
- Salgado, C. D., Farr, B. M., & Calfee, D. P.
- Venue
- Clinical Infectious Diseases
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2003-01-15
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 131-139
- ISSN
- 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-6591
- OpenAlex
- W2099601691
- Cited by
- 790
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 45.67
- 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: Community‐Acquired Methicillin‐Resistant Staphylococcus aureus:A Meta‐Analysis of Prevalence and Risk Factors. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/345436
- The paper
- Salgado, C. D., Farr, B. M., & Calfee, D. P. (2003). Community‐Acquired Methicillin‐Resistant Staphylococcus aureus:A Meta‐Analysis of Prevalence and Risk Factors. Clinical Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1086/345436
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.