The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Randomized Controlled Trial of Chlorhexidine Gluconate for Washing, Intranasal Mupirocin, and Rifampin and Doxycycline Versus No Treatment for the Eradication of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Colonization
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Eradication of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) carriage may reduce the risk of MRSA infection and prevent transmission of the organism to other patients. METHODS: To determine the efficacy of decolonization therapy, patients colonized with MRSA were randomized (3:1 allocation) to receive treatment (2% chlorhexidine gluconate washes and 2% mupirocin ointment intranasally, with oral rifampin and doxycycline for 7 days), or no treatment. Follow-up samples for MRSA culture were obtained from the nares, perineum, skin lesions, and catheter exit sites monthly for up to 8 months. The primary outcome measure was detection of MRSA at 3 months of follow-up. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to identify variables associated with treatment failure. RESULTS: Of 146 patients enrolled in the study, 112 patients (87 treated; 25 not treated) were followed up for at least 3 months. At 3 months of follow-up, 64 (74%) of those treated had culture results negative for MRSA, compared with 8 (32%) of those not treated (P=.0001). This difference remained significant at 8 months of follow-up, at which time, 54% of those treated had culture results negative for MRSA (chi2=64.4; P<.0001, by log-rank test). The results of the multivariable analysis indicated that having a mupirocin-resistant isolate at baseline was associated with treatment failure (relative risk, 9.4; 95% confidence interval, 2.8-31.9; P=.0003), whereas decolonization therapy was protective (relative risk, 0.1; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.4; P=.0002). Mupirocin resistance emerged in only 5% of follow-up isolates. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with topical mupirocin, chlorhexidine gluconate washes, oral rifampin, and doxycycline for 7 days was safe and effective in eradicating MRSA colonization in hospitalized patients for at least 3 months.
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
Cited by
David, M. Z., & Daum, R. S. (2010) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.00081-09 · Cited by 1,972
Hospital Epidemiology and Infection Control in Acute-Care Settings
Sydnor, E. R. M., & Perl, T. M. (2011) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.00027-10 · Cited by 652
Metadata
- Authors
- Simor, A. E., Phillips, E., McGeer, A., Konvalinka, A., Loeb, M., Devlin, H. R., & Kiss, A.
- Venue
- Clinical Infectious Diseases
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2007-01-15
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 178-185
- ISSN
- 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-6591
- OpenAlex
- W2098148915
- Cited by
- 286
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 15.68
- 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: Randomized Controlled Trial of Chlorhexidine Gluconate for Washing, Intranasal Mupirocin, and Rifampin and Doxycycline Versus No Treatment for the Eradication of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Colonization. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/510392
- The paper
- Simor, A. E., Phillips, E., McGeer, A., Konvalinka, A., Loeb, M., Devlin, H. R., & Kiss, A. (2007). Randomized Controlled Trial of Chlorhexidine Gluconate for Washing, Intranasal Mupirocin, and Rifampin and Doxycycline Versus No Treatment for the Eradication of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Colonization. Clinical Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1086/510392
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.