↓ Skip to main content

Review of a two-year methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus screening program and cost-effectiveness analysis in Singapore

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Review of a two-year methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus screening program and cost-effectiveness analysis in Singapore
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12879-015-1131-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mar-Kyaw Win, Tarek Abdellatif Aly Soliman, Linda Kay Lee, Chia Siong Wong, Angela Chow, Brenda Ang, Carrasco L. Roman, Yee-Sin Leo

Abstract

Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) poses an increasingly large disease and economic burden worldwide. The effectiveness of screening programs in the tropics is poorly understood. The aims of this study are: (i) to analyze the factors affecting MRSA colonization at admission and acquisition during hospitalization and (ii) to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a screening program which aims to control MRSA incidence during hospitalization. We conducted a retrospective case-control study of patients admitted to the Communicable Disease Centre (CDC) in Singapore between Jan 2009 and Dec 2010 when there was an ongoing selective screening and isolation program. Risk factors contributing to MRSA colonization on admission and acquisition during hospital stay were evaluated using a logistic regression model. In addition, a cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to determine the cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted due to implementing the screening and isolation program. The average prevalence rate of screened patients at admission and the average acquisition rate at discharge during the study period were 12.1 and 4.8 % respectively. Logistic regression models showed that older age (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.03, 95 % CI 1.02-1.04, p < 0.001) and dermatological conditions (adjusted OR 1.49, 95 % CI 1.11-1.20, p = 0.008) were independently associated with an increased risk of MRSA colonization at admission. Age (adjusted OR 1.02, 95 % CI 1.01-1.03, p = 0.002) and length of stay in hospital (adjusted OR 1.04, 95 % CI 1.03-1.06, p < 0.001) were independent factors associated with MRSA acquisition during hospitalization. The screening and isolation program reduced the acquisition rate by 1.6 % and was found to be cost saving. For the whole study period, the program cost US$129,916, while it offset hospitalization costs of US$103,869 and loss of productivity costs of US$50,453 with -400 $/DALY averted. This study is the first to our knowledge that evaluates the cost-effectiveness of screeningand isolation of MRSA patients in a tropical country. Another unique feature of the analysis is the evaluationof acquisition rates among specific types of patients (dermatological, HIV and infectious disease patients)and the comparison of the cost-effectiveness of screening and isolation between them. Overall our results indicate high MRSA prevalence that can be cost effectively reduced by selective screening and isolation programs in Singapore.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
India 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 87 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 17%
Researcher 15 17%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Other 17 19%
Unknown 19 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 11%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 4 4%
Other 23 26%
Unknown 23 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 March 2016.
All research outputs
#13,956,905
of 22,829,083 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#3,553
of 7,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#136,892
of 274,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#87
of 163 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,677 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 274,379 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 163 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.