The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Modeling the Invasion of Community‐Acquired Methicillin‐Resistant Staphylococcus aureus into Hospitals
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has traditionally been associated with infections in hospitals. Recently, a new strain of MRSA has emerged and rapidly spread in the community, causing serious infections among young, healthy individuals. Preliminary reports imply that a particular clone (USA300) of a community-acquired MRSA (CA-MRSA) strain is infiltrating hospitals and replacing the traditional hospital-acquired MRSA strains. If true, this event would have serious consequences, because CA-MRSA infections in hospitals would occur among a more debilitated, older patient population. METHODS: A deterministic mathematical model was developed to characterize the factors contributing to the replacement of hospital-acquired MRSA with CA-MRSA and to quantify the effectiveness of interventions aimed at limiting the spread of CA-MRSA in health care settings. RESULTS: The model strongly suggests that CA-MRSA will become the dominant MRSA strain in hospitals and health care facilities. This reversal of dominant strain will occur as a result of the documented expanding community reservoir and increasing influx into the hospital of individuals who harbor CA-MRSA. Competitive exclusion of hospital-acquired MRSA by CA-MRSA will occur, with increased severity of CA-MRSA infections resulting in longer hospitalizations and a larger in-hospital reservoir of CA-MRSA. CONCLUSIONS: Improving compliance with hand hygiene and screening for and decolonization of CA-MRSA carriers are effective strategies. However, hand hygiene has the greatest return of benefits and, if compliance is optimized, other strategies may have minimal added benefit.
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
Liu, C., Bayer, A., Cosgrove, S. E., Daum, R. S., Fridkin, S. K., Gorwitz, R. J., Kaplan, S. L., Karchmer, A. W., Levine, D. P., Murray, B. E., et al. (2011) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/cid/cir034 · Cited by 1,599
Köck, R., Becker, K., Cookson, B., van Gemert-Pijnen, J. E., Harbarth, S., Kluytmans, J., Mielke, M., Peters, G., Skov, R. L., Struelens, M. J., et al. (2010) · Eurosurveillance · doi:10.2807/ese.15.41.19688-en · Cited by 611
Wang, L., & Ruan, S. (2017) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-00261-1 · Cited by 63
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- D’Agata, E. M. C., Webb, G. F., Horn, M. A., Moellering, Jr., & Ruan, S.
- Venue
- Clinical Infectious Diseases
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2009-02
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 274-284
- ISSN
- 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-6591
- OpenAlex
- W2122909249
- Cited by
- 218
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 17.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Modeling the Invasion of Community‐Acquired Methicillin‐Resistant Staphylococcus aureus into Hospitals. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/595844
- The paper
- D’Agata, E. M. C., Webb, G. F., Horn, M. A., Moellering, Jr., & Ruan, S. (2009). Modeling the Invasion of Community‐Acquired Methicillin‐Resistant Staphylococcus aureus into Hospitals. Clinical Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1086/595844
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.