The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Staphylococcus aureus Bloodstream Infections: Risk Factors, Outcomes, and the Influence of Methicillin Resistance in Calgary, Canada, 2000–2006
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reports have suggested that the epidemiological profile of invasive Staphylococcus aureus infections is changing. We sought to describe the epidemiological profile of S. aureus bacteremia and to assess whether the incidence and severity of and the antimicrobial resistance rates associated with this bacteremia are increasing. METHODS: Population-based surveillance for S. aureus bacteremias was conducted in the Calgary Health Region (population, 1.2 million) during 2000-2006. RESULTS: The annual incidence of S. aureus bacteremia was 19.7 cases/100,000 population. Although rates of health care-associated and nosocomial methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) bacteremia were similar throughout the study, rates of community-acquired MSSA bacteremia gradually decreased, and rates of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) bacteremia dramatically increased. The clonal type predominantly isolated was CMRSA-2 (i.e., Canadian [C] MRSA-2), but CMRSA-10 (USA300) strains have been increasingly isolated, especially from community-onset infections, since 2004. Dialysis dependence, organ transplantation, HIV infection, cancer, and diabetes were the most important risk factors and were comparable for MSSA and MRSA bacteremias. The overall case-fatality rate was higher among individuals with MRSA (39%) than among those with MSSA (24%; P< .0001). The annual overall population mortality rate associated with S. aureus bacteremia did not significantly change during the study. CONCLUSIONS: Although the overall influence of S. aureus bacteremia has not significantly changed, MRSA has emerged as an important etiology in our region.
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
Klevens, R. M. (2007) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.298.15.1763 · Cited by 3,726
Miller, L. G., Perdreau-Remington, F., Rieg, G., Mehdi, S., Perlroth, J., Bayer, A. S., Tang, A. W., Phung, T. O., & Spellberg, B. (2005) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa042683 · Cited by 1,053
Cited by
Tong, S. Y. C., Davis, J. S., Eichenberger, E., Holland, T. L., & Fowler, V. G. (2015) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.00134-14 · Cited by 5,192
Waves of resistance: Staphylococcus aureus in the antibiotic era
Chambers, H. F., & DeLeo, F. R. (2009) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nrmicro2200 · Cited by 2,718
David, M. Z., & Daum, R. S. (2010) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.00081-09 · Cited by 1,972
Hall, V., Thomsen, R. W., Henriksen, O., & Lohse, N. (2011) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-11-564 · Cited by 624
Neutrophils in innate host defense against Staphylococcus aureus infections
Rigby, K. M., & DeLeo, F. R. (2012) · Seminars in Immunopathology · doi:10.1007/s00281-011-0295-3 · Cited by 400
Metadata
- Authors
- Laupland, K. B., Ross, T., & Gregson, D. B.
- Venue
- The Journal of Infectious Diseases
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2008-08
- Volume
- 198
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 336-343
- ISSN
- 0022-1899 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-6613
- OpenAlex
- W2156980227
- Cited by
- 296
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 15.85
- 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: Staphylococcus aureus Bloodstream Infections: Risk Factors, Outcomes, and the Influence of Methicillin Resistance in Calgary, Canada, 2000–2006. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/589717
- The paper
- Laupland, K. B., Ross, T., & Gregson, D. B. (2008). Staphylococcus aureus Bloodstream Infections: Risk Factors, Outcomes, and the Influence of Methicillin Resistance in Calgary, Canada, 2000–2006. The Journal of Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1086/589717
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.