Active treatment vs observation: Eradication of MRSA
Active treatment showed no clear difference in eradication of MRSA: number of participants that were MRSA‐negativea compared with observation only (low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Active treatment vs observation only Eradication of MRSA: number of participants that were MRSA‐negativea · adults or children with positive microbiological isolate of MRSA from a respiratory tract specimen Active treatment showed no clear difference in eradication of MRSA: number of participants that were MRSA‐negativea compared with observation only (low certainty). Interventions for the eradication of meticillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in people with cystic… (2022) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | OR 1.72 [0.65, 4.55] | 2 studies · 68 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interventions for the eradication of meticillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in people with cystic fibrosis 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.