Clinical effectiveness of rapid tests for methicillin resistant <it>Staphylococcus aureus </it>(MRSA) in hospitalized patients: a systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Methicillin resistant <it>Staphylococcus aureus </it>(MRSA) are often resistant to multiple classes of antibiotics. The research objectives of this systematic review were to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of polymera...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Polisena Julie, Chen Stella, Cimon Karen, McGill Sarah, Forward Kevin, Gardam Michael
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2011-12-01
Series:BMC Infectious Diseases
Online Access:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2334/11/336
id doaj-476a432d12dd4831a6b7b9d6688e1825
record_format Article
spelling doaj-476a432d12dd4831a6b7b9d6688e18252020-11-25T01:43:47ZengBMCBMC Infectious Diseases1471-23342011-12-0111133610.1186/1471-2334-11-336Clinical effectiveness of rapid tests for methicillin resistant <it>Staphylococcus aureus </it>(MRSA) in hospitalized patients: a systematic reviewPolisena JulieChen StellaCimon KarenMcGill SarahForward KevinGardam Michael<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Methicillin resistant <it>Staphylococcus aureus </it>(MRSA) are often resistant to multiple classes of antibiotics. The research objectives of this systematic review were to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) versus chromogenic agar for MRSA screening, and PCR versus no screening for several clinical outcomes, including MRSA colonization and infection rates.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>An electronic literature search was conducted on studies evaluating polymerase chain reaction techniques and methicillin (also spelled meticillin) resistant <it>Staphylococcus aureus </it>that were published from 1993 onwards using Medline, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, BIOSIS Previews, and EMBASE. Due to the presence of heterogeneity in the selected studies, the clinical findings of individual studies were described.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Nine studies that compared screening for MRSA using PCR versus screening using chromogenic agar in a hospital setting, and two studies that compared screening using PCR with no or targeted screening were identified. Some studies found lower MRSA colonization and acquisition, infection, and transmission rates in screening with PCR versus screening with chromogenic agar, and the turnaround time for screening test results was lower for PCR. One study reported a lower number of unnecessary isolation days with screening using PCR versus screening with chromogenic agar, but the proportion of patients isolated was similar between both groups. The turnaround time for test results and number of isolation days were lower for PCR versus chromogenic agar for MRSA screening.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The use of PCR for MRSA screening demonstrated a lower turnaround time and number of isolation days compared with chromogenic agar. Given the mixed quality and number of studies (11 studies), gaps remain in the published literature and the evidence remains insufficient. In addition to screening, factors such as the number of contacts between healthcare workers and patients, number of patients attended by one healthcare worker per day, probability of colonization among healthcare workers, and MRSA status of hospital shared equipment and hospital environment must be considered to control the transmission of MRSA in a hospital setting.</p> http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2334/11/336
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Polisena Julie
Chen Stella
Cimon Karen
McGill Sarah
Forward Kevin
Gardam Michael
spellingShingle Polisena Julie
Chen Stella
Cimon Karen
McGill Sarah
Forward Kevin
Gardam Michael
Clinical effectiveness of rapid tests for methicillin resistant <it>Staphylococcus aureus </it>(MRSA) in hospitalized patients: a systematic review
BMC Infectious Diseases
author_facet Polisena Julie
Chen Stella
Cimon Karen
McGill Sarah
Forward Kevin
Gardam Michael
author_sort Polisena Julie
title Clinical effectiveness of rapid tests for methicillin resistant <it>Staphylococcus aureus </it>(MRSA) in hospitalized patients: a systematic review
title_short Clinical effectiveness of rapid tests for methicillin resistant <it>Staphylococcus aureus </it>(MRSA) in hospitalized patients: a systematic review
title_full Clinical effectiveness of rapid tests for methicillin resistant <it>Staphylococcus aureus </it>(MRSA) in hospitalized patients: a systematic review
title_fullStr Clinical effectiveness of rapid tests for methicillin resistant <it>Staphylococcus aureus </it>(MRSA) in hospitalized patients: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Clinical effectiveness of rapid tests for methicillin resistant <it>Staphylococcus aureus </it>(MRSA) in hospitalized patients: a systematic review
title_sort clinical effectiveness of rapid tests for methicillin resistant <it>staphylococcus aureus </it>(mrsa) in hospitalized patients: a systematic review
publisher BMC
series BMC Infectious Diseases
issn 1471-2334
publishDate 2011-12-01
description <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Methicillin resistant <it>Staphylococcus aureus </it>(MRSA) are often resistant to multiple classes of antibiotics. The research objectives of this systematic review were to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) versus chromogenic agar for MRSA screening, and PCR versus no screening for several clinical outcomes, including MRSA colonization and infection rates.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>An electronic literature search was conducted on studies evaluating polymerase chain reaction techniques and methicillin (also spelled meticillin) resistant <it>Staphylococcus aureus </it>that were published from 1993 onwards using Medline, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, BIOSIS Previews, and EMBASE. Due to the presence of heterogeneity in the selected studies, the clinical findings of individual studies were described.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Nine studies that compared screening for MRSA using PCR versus screening using chromogenic agar in a hospital setting, and two studies that compared screening using PCR with no or targeted screening were identified. Some studies found lower MRSA colonization and acquisition, infection, and transmission rates in screening with PCR versus screening with chromogenic agar, and the turnaround time for screening test results was lower for PCR. One study reported a lower number of unnecessary isolation days with screening using PCR versus screening with chromogenic agar, but the proportion of patients isolated was similar between both groups. The turnaround time for test results and number of isolation days were lower for PCR versus chromogenic agar for MRSA screening.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The use of PCR for MRSA screening demonstrated a lower turnaround time and number of isolation days compared with chromogenic agar. Given the mixed quality and number of studies (11 studies), gaps remain in the published literature and the evidence remains insufficient. In addition to screening, factors such as the number of contacts between healthcare workers and patients, number of patients attended by one healthcare worker per day, probability of colonization among healthcare workers, and MRSA status of hospital shared equipment and hospital environment must be considered to control the transmission of MRSA in a hospital setting.</p>
url http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2334/11/336
work_keys_str_mv AT polisenajulie clinicaleffectivenessofrapidtestsformethicillinresistantitstaphylococcusaureusitmrsainhospitalizedpatientsasystematicreview
AT chenstella clinicaleffectivenessofrapidtestsformethicillinresistantitstaphylococcusaureusitmrsainhospitalizedpatientsasystematicreview
AT cimonkaren clinicaleffectivenessofrapidtestsformethicillinresistantitstaphylococcusaureusitmrsainhospitalizedpatientsasystematicreview
AT mcgillsarah clinicaleffectivenessofrapidtestsformethicillinresistantitstaphylococcusaureusitmrsainhospitalizedpatientsasystematicreview
AT forwardkevin clinicaleffectivenessofrapidtestsformethicillinresistantitstaphylococcusaureusitmrsainhospitalizedpatientsasystematicreview
AT gardammichael clinicaleffectivenessofrapidtestsformethicillinresistantitstaphylococcusaureusitmrsainhospitalizedpatientsasystematicreview
_version_ 1725031553553137664