English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  This study was performed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of alternative strategies for the prevention and treatment of patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing peritoneal dialysis and colonized by  Staphylococcus aureus .    Methods  A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed. The literature search involved the following databases: the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Embase, LILACS, CINAHL, SciELO, and PubMed/Medline. The descriptors were “ Staphylococcus aureus ,” “MRSA,” “MSSA,” “treatment,” “decolonization,” “nasal carrier,” “colonization,” “chronic kidney disease,” “dialysis,” and “peritoneal dialysis.” Randomized controlled trials that exhibited agreement among reviewers as shown by a kappa value of >0.80 were included in the study; methodological quality was evaluated using the STROBE statement. Patients who received various antibiotic treatments (antibiotic group) or topical mupirocin (mupirocin group) were compared with those who received either no treatment or placebo (control group). Patients in the antibiotic group were also compared with those in the mupirocin group.    Results  In total, nine studies involving 839 patients were included in the analysis, 187 (22.3 %) of whom were nasal carriers of  S. aureus . The probability of  S. aureus  infection at the catheter site for peritoneal dialysis was 74 % lower in the mupirocin than control group (odds ratio [OR], 0.26; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.14–0.46;  p  < 0.001), 56 % lower in the antibiotic than control group (OR, 0.44; 95 % CI, 0.19–0.99;  p  = 0.048), and 52 % lower in the mupirocin than antibiotic group (OR, 0.48; 95 % CI, 0.21–1.10;  p  = 0.084). The difference in the probability of  S. aureus  peritonitis in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis was not statistically significant among the three groups.    Conclusions  Mupirocin and topical antibiotics were effective for reduction of  S. aureus  catheter site infection in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis when compared with no treatment or placebo. However, evidence was insufficient to identify the optimal agent, route, or duration of antibiotics to treat peritonitis.    Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12882-016-0329-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

bmc nephrology

Prophylactic treatment of chronic renal disease in patients undergoing peritoneal dialysis and colonized by Staphylococcus aureus: a systematic review and meta-analysis