The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Laboratory-based surveillance of current antimicrobial resistance patterns and trends among Staphylococcus aureus: 2005 status in the United States
Open accessAbstract
Background: The virulence, antimicrobial resistance, and prevalence of S. aureus underscores the need for up-to-date and extensive insights regarding antimicrobial susceptibility trends. One approach to meet this need is analysis of clinical laboratory – based surveillance data. Methods: Data from The Surveillance Network-USA (TSN), an electronic surveillance network that collects microbiology data from 300 clinical microbiology laboratories across the United States, were used as the source for analysis that included prevalence of S. aureus in clinical specimens, MRSA and multi-drug resistance phenotype rates and trends according to patient location, geographic distributions, and specimen source. Results: S. aureus was the most prevalent species isolated from inpatient specimens (18.7% of all bacterial isolates) and the second most prevalent (14.7%) from outpatient specimens. In March 2005 MRSA rates were 59.2%, 55%, and 47.9% for strains from non-ICU inpatients, ICU, and outpatients, respectively. This trend was noted in all nine US Bureau of Census regions and multi-drug resistance phenotypes (resistance to ≥ 3 non-beta-lactams) was common among both inpatient MRSA (59.9%) and outpatient MRSA (40.8%). Greater than 90% of multi-drug resistant MRSA were susceptible to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, linezolid, and vancomycin. Conclusion: Prevalence of MRSA among both inpatient and outpatient specimens continues to increase with multi-drug resistance as a common phenotype. Continued emergence of outpatient MRSA that exhibit multi-drug resistant phenotypes has important implications for developing and evolving outpatient treatment guidelines.
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
Lina, G., Piemont, Y., Godail-Gamot, F., Bes, M., Peter, M.-O., Gauduchon, V., Vandenesch, F., & Etienne, J. (1999) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1086/313461 · Cited by 2,489
Cited by
Tacconelli, E., De Angelis, G., Cataldo, M. A., Pozzi, E., & Cauda, R. (2007) · Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy · doi:10.1093/jac/dkm416 · Cited by 435
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
Chandra, H., Bishnoi, P., Yadav, A., Patni, B., Mishra, A., & Nautiyal, A. (2017) · Plants · doi:10.3390/plants6020016 · Cited by 389
Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia: Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, and Management Strategies
Naber, C. K. (2009) · Clinical Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1086/598189 · Cited by 313
Svetitsky, S., Leibovici, L., & Paul, M. (2009) · Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy · doi:10.1128/aac.00341-09 · Cited by 275
Metadata
- Authors
- Styers, D., Sheehan, D. J., Hogan, P., & Sahm, D. F.
- Venue
- Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials
- Published
- 2006-01
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 2-2
- ISSN
- 1476-0711 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2125733555
- Cited by
- 387
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 20.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Laboratory-based surveillance of current antimicrobial resistance patterns and trends among Staphylococcus aureus: 2005 status in the United States. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1476-0711-5-2
- The paper
- Styers, D., Sheehan, D. J., Hogan, P., & Sahm, D. F. (2006). Laboratory-based surveillance of current antimicrobial resistance patterns and trends among Staphylococcus aureus: 2005 status in the United States. Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-0711-5-2
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.