U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Glick SB, Samson DJ, Huang E, et al. Screening for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2013 Jun. (Comparative Effectiveness Reviews, No. 102.)

  • This publication is provided for historical reference only and the information may be out of date.

This publication is provided for historical reference only and the information may be out of date.

Cover of Screening for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA)

Screening for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) [Internet].

Show details

Appendix EMRSA Data Abstraction Form Elements

Study Characteristics

  1. First Author (last name, first name)
  2. Year
  3. Country
  4. Study Design
    1. RCT
    2. ITS
    3. QEX-BA
    4. QEX-CG
    5. X-OVER
  5. Intervention N:
    1. Rate:
    2. Proportion:
    3. Both:
  6. Indicate the units for the Intervention N:
    1. Person-Time
    2. Individuals
    3. Other
  7. Control N:
    1. Rate:
    2. Proportion:
    3. Both:
  8. Indicate the units for the Control N:
    1. Person-time
    2. Individuals
    3. Other:
  9. Intervention(s) (including assay type)
  10. Control Intervention(s) (including assay type)
  11. Setting
  12. Study duration
  13. Pre-defined endpoints
  14. Inclusion Criteria
  15. Exclusion Criteria
  16. Participant Characteristics of Intervention Group
  17. Participant Characteristics of Control Group
  18. Colonization Pressure Intervention Group
  19. Colonization Pressure Control Group
  20. Turnaround Time
  21. Duration of Follow-Up Intervention Group
  22. Duration of Follow-Up Control Group
  23. Source of Funding and Disclosed Author-Industry Relationships

Outcomes

  1. Study Description of Outcome (how did article label the outcome?)
  2. Study Definition of Numerator of Outcome
  3. Study Definition of Denominator of Outcome
  4. Indicate how the outcome measure is reported and specify units if rate (e.g., per 1000 patient-days)
    1. Rate:
    2. Proportion
    3. Both:
    4. Other:
  5. If the outcome is a rate indicate the units
    1. per 100 patient days
    2. per 1000 patient days
    3. per 10,000 patient days
    4. per 100 admissions
    5. per 1000 admissions
    6. per 10,000 admissions
    7. Other:
  6. Frequency of Outcome in Intervention Group:
  7. Frequency of Outcome in Control Group:
  8. Difference [Screening-Control (95% CI)]
  9. Difference Metric:
    1. Rate Ratio:
    2. Risk Ratio:
    3. Rate Difference:
    4. Risk Difference:
  10. Analysis (e.g., Regression, Name of Statistical Test)
  11. Univariate Analysis Results (variable1 (p value); ...)
  12. Multivariate Analysis Results (variable1 (p value); ...)
  13. Were covariates included in multivariate models based on univariate analysis p values?
    1. Yes
    2. No
    3. Uncertain
  14. Describe decisions for building final multivariate model.

Study Quality

  1. Initial assembly of comparable groups
    1. Yes
    2. No
    3. Uncertain
  2. Maintenance of comparable groups (includes attrition, crossovers, adherence, and contamination)
    1. Yes
    2. No
    3. Uncertain
  3. Avoidance of important differential loss to followup or overall high loss to followup.
    1. Yes
    2. No
    3. Uncertain
  4. Measurements reliable, valid, equal (includes masking of outcome assessment)
    1. Yes
    2. No
    3. Uncertain
  5. Interventions comparable/clearly defined
    1. Yes
    2. No
    3. Uncertain
  6. All important outcomes considered
    1. Yes
    2. No
    3. Uncertain
  7. Appropriate analysis of results (adjustment for potential confounders and intention-to-treat analysis)
    1. Yes
    2. No
    3. Uncertain
  8. Funding/sponsorship source acknowledged
    1. Yes
    2. No
    3. Uncertain
  9. Overall Rating
    1. Good
    2. Fair
    3. Poor
  10. Were baseline prognostic characteristics clearly described and groups shown to be comparable?
    1. Yes
    2. No
    3. Uncertain
  11. Were interventions clearly specified?
    1. Yes
    2. No
  12. Were participants in treatment groups recruited in the same time period?
    1. Yes
    2. No
    3. Uncertain
  13. Was there an attempt by investigators to allocate participants to treatment groups in an attempt to minimize bias?
    1. Yes
    2. No
  14. Were concurrent/concomitant treatments clearly specified and given equally to treatment groups?
    1. Yes
    2. No
  15. Were outcome measures clearly valid, reliable, and equally applied to treatment groups?
    1. Yes
    2. No
  16. Were outcome assessors blinded?
    1. Yes
    2. No
    3. Uncertain
  17. Was the length of follow-up adequate? (median/mean, range of follow-up)
    1. Yes
    2. No
  18. Was attrition below an overall high level (<20%)?
    1. Yes
    2. No
    3. Uncertain
  19. Was the difference in attrition between treatment groups below a high level (<15%)?
    1. Yes
    2. No
    3. Uncertain
  20. Did the analysis of outcome data incorporate a method for handling confounders such as statistical adjustment?
    1. Yes
    2. No
  21. Did the study design use a separate control group?
    1. Yes
    2. No
  22. Did the statistical analysis use regression or time series modeling?
    1. Yes
    2. No

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page
  • PDF version of this title (2.0M)

In this Page

Other titles in these collections

Recent Activity

ClearTurn OffTurn On

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...