 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
EID
Home | Ahead of Print | Past
Issues | EID Search | Contact
Us | Announcements | Suggested
Citation | Submit Manuscript
Volume 11, Number 10, October 2005 Isolate Removal Methods and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus SurveillanceFenfang Li,* Tracy L. Ayers,† Sarah Y. Park,† F. DeWolfe Miller,*
Ralph MacFadden,† Michele Nakata,† Myra Ching Lee,† and Paul V. Effler† |
|
|
|
 |
|
| Back to article | |
|
Figure 1. Effect of duplicate isolate removal strategies on the number of Staphylococcus aureus isolates and percentage susceptible to oxacillin for all patients in Hawaii, 2002. The 95% confidence interval for the proportion is shown in brackets. NR, no removal; MR, most resistant; MS, most susceptible; N, NCCLS algorithm; C, Cerner algorithm; the number indicates the days in the analysis period. |
|
|
|
|
|
EID Home | Top of Page | Ahead-of-Print | Past Issues | Suggested Citation | EID Search | Contact Us | Accessibility | Privacy Policy Notice | CDC Home | CDC Search | Health Topics A-Z |
|
|
This page last reviewed August 31, 2005 |
|
|
Emerging
Infectious Diseases Journal |
|