Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 448

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Natural History of Community‐Acquired Methicillin‐Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Colonization and Infection in Soldiers

Open access
Ellis, Michael W., Hospenthal, Duane R., Dooley, David P., Gray, Paula J., Murray, Clinton K.·2004·Clinical Infectious Diseases
DOI 10.1086/423965
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Community-acquired methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA) is an emerging pathogen for which the prevalence, risk factors, and natural history are incompletely understood. METHODS: In this prospective observational study, we evaluated 812 US Army soldiers to determine the prevalence of and risk factors for CA-MRSA colonization and the changes in colonization rate over time, as well as to determine the clinical significance of CA-MRSA colonization. Demographic data and swab samples from the nares for S. aureus cultures were obtained from participants at the start of their training and 8-10 weeks later. Over this time period, participants were observed prospectively to monitor for soft-tissue infections. S. aureus isolates were characterized by in vitro examination of antibiotic susceptibilities, mecA confirmation, pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, and Panton-Valentine leukocidin (PVL) gene testing. RESULTS: At the initial sampling, 24 of the participants (3%) were colonized with CA-MRSA, 9 of whom (38%) developed soft-tissue infections during the study period. In contrast, 229 participants (28%) were colonized with methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA), 8 (3%) of whom developed clinical infections during the same period (relative risk, 10.7; 95% confidence interval, 4.6-25.2; P<.001). At follow-up culture, the CA-MRSA colonization rate dropped to 1.6% without eradication efforts. Previous antibiotic use was a risk factor for CA-MRSA colonization at the initial sampling (P=.03). PVL genes were detected in 66% of 45 recovered CA-MRSA isolates, including all 9 clinical isolates available for analysis. Of subjects hospitalized, 5 of 6 had PVL-positive CA-MRSA infections. CONCLUSIONS: CA-MRSA colonization with PVL-positive strains was associated with a significant risk of soft-tissue infection, suggesting that CA-MRSA may be more virulent than MSSA. Previous antibiotic use may play a role in CA-MRSA colonization.

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 · 10.1086/423965

Cites

45 of 45 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 45 references

Cited by

See all 448

Metadata

Authors
Ellis, M. W., Hospenthal, D. R., Dooley, D. P., Gray, P. J., & Murray, C. K.
Venue
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2004-10
Volume
39
Issue
7
Pages
971-979
ISSN
  • 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-6591
DOI
10.1086/423965
OpenAlex
W2113808646
Cited by
448
References
45
FWCI
20.76
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: Natural History of Community‐Acquired Methicillin‐Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Colonization and Infection in Soldiers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/423965
The paper
Ellis, M. W., Hospenthal, D. R., Dooley, D. P., Gray, P. J., & Murray, C. K. (2004). Natural History of Community‐Acquired Methicillin‐Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Colonization and Infection in Soldiers. Clinical Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1086/423965

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.