The DOI matches its Crossref record.
An Antimicrobial Stewardship Program’s Impact with Rapid Polymerase Chain Reaction Methicillin‐Resistant Staphylococcus aureus/S. aureus Blood Culture Test in Patients with S. aureus Bacteremia
Abstract
Rapid organism detection of Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia and communication to clinicians expedites antibiotic optimization. We evaluated clinical and economic outcomes of a rapid polymerase chain reaction methicillin‐resistant S. aureus/S. aureus blood culture test (rPCR). This single‐center study compared inpatients with S. aureus bacteremia admitted from 1 September 2008 through 31 December 2008 (pre‐rPCR) and those admitted from 10 March 2009 through 30 June 2009 (post‐rPCR). An infectious diseases pharmacist was contacted with results of the rPCR; effective antibiotics and an infectious diseases consult were recommended. Multivariable regression assessed clinical and economic outcomes of the 156 patients. Mean time to switch from empiric vancomycin to cefazolin or nafcillin in patients with methicillin‐susceptible S. aureus bacteremia was 1.7 days shorter post‐rPCR (P = .002). In the post‐rPCR methicillin‐susceptible and methicillin‐resistant S. aureus groups, the mean length of stay was 6.2 days shorter (P = .07) and the mean hospital costs were $21,387 less (P = .02). rPCR allows rapid differentiation of S. aureus bacteremia, enabling timely, effective therapy and is associated with decreased length of stay and health care costs.
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
Barlam, T. F., Cosgrove, S. E., Abbo, L. M., MacDougall, C., Schuetz, A. N., Septimus, E. J., Srinivasan, A., Dellit, T. H., Falck-Ytter, Y. T., Fishman, N. O., et al. (2016) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/cid/ciw118 · Cited by 3,061
Banerjee, R., Teng, C. B., Cunningham, S. A., Ihde, S. M., Steckelberg, J. M., Moriarty, J. P., Shah, N. D., Mandrekar, J. N., & Patel, R. (2015) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1093/cid/civ447 · Cited by 570
Perez, K. K., Olsen, R. J., Musick, W. L., Cernoch, P. L., Davis, J. R., Land, G. A., Peterson, L. E., & Musser, J. M. (2013) · Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine · doi:10.5858/arpa.2012-0651-oa · Cited by 388
Perez, K. K., Olsen, R. J., Musick, W. L., Cernoch, P. L., Davis, J. R., Peterson, L. E., & Musser, J. M. (2014) · Journal of Infection · doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2014.05.005 · Cited by 321
Emerging Technologies for the Clinical Microbiology Laboratory
Buchan, B. W., & Ledeboer, N. A. (2014) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.00003-14 · Cited by 297
Metadata
- Authors
- Bauer, K. A., West, J. E., Balada‐Llasat, J., Pancholi, P., Stevenson, K. B., & Goff, D. A.
- Venue
- Clinical Infectious Diseases
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2010-11
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1074-1080
- ISSN
- 1058-4838 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-6591
- OpenAlex
- W2206769039
- Cited by
- 347
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 15.95
- 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: An Antimicrobial Stewardship Program’s Impact with Rapid Polymerase Chain Reaction Methicillin‐Resistant Staphylococcus aureus/S. aureus Blood Culture Test in Patients with S. aureus Bacteremia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/656623
- The paper
- Bauer, K. A., West, J. E., Balada‐Llasat, J., Pancholi, P., Stevenson, K. B., & Goff, D. A. (2010). An Antimicrobial Stewardship Program’s Impact with Rapid Polymerase Chain Reaction Methicillin‐Resistant Staphylococcus aureus/S. aureus Blood Culture Test in Patients with S. aureus Bacteremia. Clinical Infectious Diseases. https://doi.org/10.1086/656623
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.