The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Does antibiotic exposure increase the risk of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) isolation? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current evidence does not provide a clear definition of the association between methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) isolation and previous antibiotic use. A systematic review was performed to determine whether antibiotic exposure is a risk factor for the isolation of MRSA. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched to identify studies published between 1976 and 2007 on the role of antibiotics as a risk factor for MRSA isolation in adult patients. The outcome of interest was MRSA isolation. Summary statistics were risk ratios (RR) comparing MRSA-positive patients to those without S. aureus isolation or with methicillin-susceptible S. aureus isolation. RESULTS: Seventy-six studies, including a total of 24 230 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Antibiotic exposure was determined in the 126 +/- 184 (mean +/- SD) days preceding MRSA isolation. The risk of acquiring MRSA was increased by 1.8-fold [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.7-1.9; P < 0.001] in patients who had taken antibiotics. The RR for single classes of antibiotics was 3 (95% CI, 2.5-3.5) for quinolones, 2.9 (95% CI, 2.4-3.5) for glycopeptides, 2.2 (95% CI, 1.7-2.9) for cephalosporins and 1.9 (95% CI, 1.7-2.2) for other beta-lactams. Significant heterogeneity was detected among studies. A regression analysis revealed that the heterogeneity was linked to the length of time in which antibiotic exposure was detected before MRSA isolation (more or less than 180 days). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis shows a clear association between exposure to antibiotics and MRSA isolation. This information may be useful for researchers in designing future studies and for policy decision-making on the appropriate management of antibiotic therapies.
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
Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533446 · Cited by 16,955
Charlebois, E. D., Bangsberg, D. R., Moss, N. J., Moore, M. R., Moss, A. R., Chambers, H. F., & Perdreau-Remington, F. (2002) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1086/338069 · Cited by 245
Cited by
Bell, B. G., Schellevis, F., Stobberingh, E., Goossens, H., & Pringle, M. (2014) · BMC Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1186/1471-2334-14-13 · Cited by 1,262
Livestock-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in animals and humans
Graveland, H., Duim, B., van Duijkeren, E., Heederik, D., & Wagenaar, J. A. (2011) · International Journal of Medical Microbiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijmm.2011.09.004 · Cited by 308
Stenstrom, R., Grafstein, E., Romney, M., Fahimi, J., Harris, D., Hunte, G., Innes, G., & Christenson, J. (2009) · CJEM · doi:10.1017/s1481803500011623 · Cited by 53
Impact of low blood culture usage on rates of antimicrobial resistance
Lim, C., Hantrakun, V., Teerawattanasook, N., Srisamang, P., Teparrukkul, P., Sumpradit, N., Turner, P., Day, N. P., Cooper, B. S., Peacock, S. J., et al. (2021) · Journal of Infection · doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2020.10.040 · Cited by 36
Role of Direct Bioautographic Method for Detection of Antistaphylococcal Activity of Essential Oils
Horváth, G., Jámbor, N., Kocsis, E., Böszörményi, A., Lemberkovics, Έ., Héthelyi, Έ., Kovács, K., & Kocsis, B. (2011) · Natural Product Communications · doi:10.1177/1934578x1100600939 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Tacconelli, E., De Angelis, G., Cataldo, M. A., Pozzi, E., & Cauda, R.
- Venue
- Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2007-11-22
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 26-38
- ISSN
- 0305-7453 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2091
- OpenAlex
- W2127173202
- Cited by
- 435
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 2.75
- 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
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.