Cited by 155Antimicrobial Resistance in StaphylococcusAntibiotic Use and ResistanceInfection Control in Healthcare

The Changing Epidemiology of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the United States: A National Observational Study

Klein, Eili Y., Sun, Lova, Smith, David L., Laxminarayan, Ramanan·2013·American Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) can cause major illness and death and impose serious economic costs on patients and hospitals. Community-associated MRSA (CA-MRSA) is a growing problem in US hospitals, which are already dealing with high levels of hospital-associated MRSA (HA-MRSA), but little is known about how patient age and seasonal differences in the incidence of these 2 forms of MRSA affect the epidemic. By using national data on hospitalizations and antibiotic resistance, we estimated the magnitude and trends in annual S. aureus and MRSA hospitalization rates from 2005-2009 by patient age, infection type, and resistance phenotype (CA-MRSA vs. HA-MRSA). Although no statistically significant increase in the hospitalization rate was seen over the study period, the total number of infections increased. In 2009, there were an estimated 463,017 (95% confidence interval: 441,595, 484,439) MRSA-related hospitalizations at a rate of 11.74 (95% confidence interval: 11.20, 12.28) per 1,000 hospitalizations. We observed significant differences in infection type by age, with HA-MRSA-related hospitalizations being more common in older individuals. We also noted significant seasonality in incidence, particularly in children, with CA-MRSA peaking in the late summer and HA-MRSA peaking in the winter, which may be caused by seasonal shifts in antibiotic prescribing patterns.

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 · 10.1093/aje/kws273

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There was not enough data to draw any inferences regarding temporal changes in the etiology of coinfecting pathogens.

    “However, although there have been significant increases in the incidence of MRSA infections in the last decade, particularly community‐associated MRSA (CA‐MRSA),64 there was not enough data to draw any inferences regarding temporal changes in the etiology of coinfecting pathogens.”
  • Approximately 50% of hospital S. aureus isolates are MRSA.

    “Given that over 25% of identified isolates were S. aureus, and that approximately 50% of hospital S. aureus isolates are MRSA,64 our study supports IDSA recommendations for empiric coverage of CA‐MRSA in influenza‐related pneumonia patients.63”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Newcombe RG. Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods. Stat Med. 1998; 17(8):857-872.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Klein, E. Y., Sun, L., Smith, D. L., & Laxminarayan, R.
Affiliations
  • Princeton University (US)
  • Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy (US)
Corresponding author
Laxminarayan, Ramanan
Venue
American Journal of Epidemiology
Published
2013-02-28
Volume
177
Issue
7
Pages
666-674
ISSN
  • 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-6256
OpenAlex
W2104267283
Cited by
155
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 2
FWCI
14.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
  • Princeton University
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • Princeton Environmental Institute, Princeton University
  • Emerging Pathogens Institute, University of Florida
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Antimicrobial Resistance in Staphylococcus
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology › Antibiotic Use and Resistance
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Infection Control in Healthcare
Keywords
methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, community-acquired MRSA, hospital-acquired MRSA, seasonal variation, age differences in infection, antibiotic resistance, antibiotic prescribing patterns
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Cross Infection, Hospitalization, Humans, Middle Aged, Phenotype, Seasons, Staphylococcal Infections, United States, Incidence, Age Distribution, Community-Acquired Infections, Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus

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