Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 361

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Risk Factors for Colonization with Methicillin‐Resistant Staphylococcus aureus(MRSA) in Patients Admitted to an Urban Hospital: Emergence of Community‐Associated MRSA Nasal Carriage

Hidron, Alicia I., Kourbatova, Ekaterina V., Halvosa, J. Sue, Terrell, Bianca J., McDougal, Linda K., Tenover, Fred C., Blumberg, Henry M., King, Mark D.·2005·Clinical Infectious Diseases
DOI 10.1086/430910
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Surveillance cultures performed at hospital admission have been recommended to identify patients colonized with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) but require substantial resources. We determined the prevalence of and risk factors for MRSA colonization at the time of hospital admission among patients cared for at a public urban hospital. METHODS: Anterior nares cultures were obtained within 48 h after admission during a 1-month period. A case-control study and molecular typing studies were performed. RESULTS: A total of 53 (7.3%) of 726 patients had a nares culture positive for MRSA, and 119 (16.4%) had a nares culture that was positive for methicillin-susceptible S. aureus. In multivariate analysis, risk factors for MRSA colonization included antibiotic use within 3 months before admission (odds ratio [OR], 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-5.0), hospitalization during the past 12 months (OR, 4.0; 95% CI, 2.0-8.2), diagnosis of skin or soft-tissue infection at admission (OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.5-7.9), and HIV infection. A total of 47 (89%) of 53 case patients colonized with MRSA had at least 1 of these independent risk factors, in contrast to 343 (51%) of 673 control patients (OR, 7.5; 95% CI, 3.2 -17.9). Molecular typing demonstrated that 16 (30%) of 53 MRSA nares isolates (2.2% of the 726 isolates) belonged to the USA300 community-associated MRSA (CA-MRSA) genotype. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of MRSA colonization at the time of patient admission was high (>7%). Limiting surveillance cultures to patients with >or=1 of the identified risk factors may allow for targeted screening. The emergence of CA-MRSA colonization represents a new, unrecognized reservoir of MRSA within hospitals, potentially increasing the risk for horizontal 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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/430910

Cites

21 of 21 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 21 references

Cited by

See all 361

Metadata

Authors
Hidron, A. I., Kourbatova, E. V., Halvosa, J. S., Terrell, B. J., McDougal, L. K., Tenover, F. C., Blumberg, H. M., & King, M. D.
Venue
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2005-07-15
Volume
41
Issue
2
Pages
159-166
ISSN
  • 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-6591
DOI
10.1086/430910
OpenAlex
W2153095211
Cited by
361
References
21
FWCI
18.21
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: Risk Factors for Colonization with Methicillin‐Resistant Staphylococcus aureus(MRSA) in Patients Admitted to an Urban Hospital: Emergence of Community‐Associated MRSA Nasal Carriage. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/430910
The paper
Hidron, A. I., Kourbatova, E. V., Halvosa, J. S., Terrell, B. J., McDougal, L. K., Tenover, F. C., Blumberg, H. M., & King, M. D. (2005). Risk Factors for Colonization with Methicillin‐Resistant Staphylococcus aureus(MRSA) in Patients Admitted to an Urban Hospital: Emergence of Community‐Associated MRSA Nasal Carriage. Clinical Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1086/430910

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.