Mortality of MRSA USA300 vs. Non-USA300 Invasive Infections
Mortality of MRSA USA300 vs. Non-USA300 Invasive Infections
The main objective of this study was to summarize the odds of mortality associated with USA300 MRSA invasive infection compared with non-USA300 MRSA invasive infection. We developed a data abstraction form and subjected it to a pilot test. The form was revised as deemed necessary by investigators. Article abstracts were reviewed (R.N.) in accordance with the predefined inclusion criteria. Two of 3 independent researchers (R.N., M.L.S., and E.A.) reviewed each included article in full to extract data. Included articles were discussed and compared for agreement with a third reviewer (M.R.). Inconsistencies were reviewed and disagreements were resolved by consensus. Extracted data were entered in a Microsoft Excel (2007) database and the Cochrane Review Manager, version 5.2.5 for Windows (Nordic Cochrane Center, Cochrane Collaboration) to conduct statistical analysis. This meta-analysis was conducted according to the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) checklist.
Data extracted from each study included study design, study period, diversity of population (single- vs multicenter), origin of study population (hospital, community, other), number of patients meeting exposure criteria, definition of mortality (30-day, 90-day, attributable, crude), cOR and adjusted OR (aOR; if provided), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Information was extracted on covariates adjusted for in each study. We assigned a quality score to included studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale (NOS), as described in a previous meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses were conducted on the basis of data abstracted for a priori categories.
Data Extraction and Analyses
The main objective of this study was to summarize the odds of mortality associated with USA300 MRSA invasive infection compared with non-USA300 MRSA invasive infection. We developed a data abstraction form and subjected it to a pilot test. The form was revised as deemed necessary by investigators. Article abstracts were reviewed (R.N.) in accordance with the predefined inclusion criteria. Two of 3 independent researchers (R.N., M.L.S., and E.A.) reviewed each included article in full to extract data. Included articles were discussed and compared for agreement with a third reviewer (M.R.). Inconsistencies were reviewed and disagreements were resolved by consensus. Extracted data were entered in a Microsoft Excel (2007) database and the Cochrane Review Manager, version 5.2.5 for Windows (Nordic Cochrane Center, Cochrane Collaboration) to conduct statistical analysis. This meta-analysis was conducted according to the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) checklist.
Data extracted from each study included study design, study period, diversity of population (single- vs multicenter), origin of study population (hospital, community, other), number of patients meeting exposure criteria, definition of mortality (30-day, 90-day, attributable, crude), cOR and adjusted OR (aOR; if provided), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Information was extracted on covariates adjusted for in each study. We assigned a quality score to included studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale (NOS), as described in a previous meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses were conducted on the basis of data abstracted for a priori categories.
Source...