By what means did you self-diagnose MRSA? At a hospital, that would involve a Gram stain / culture/speciation / sensitivities and take a few days.
Gram stain, because it's very fast (minutes) and can tell you, e.g., that you have Gram positive cocci in clusters (thus, likely staphylococcus species).
Culture, then, to grow the bugs and see what nutritional requirements they have and what biochemical modifications they make. Catalase producing? Likely staph aureus.
Finally, sensitivities: resistant to oxacillin? MRSA.
One could imagine PCR-based tests, too, though at my institution such a test is not in use.
Getting back to my question, how did you successfully self-diagnose MRSA?
A really determined person could probably do almost all of those at home if they really wanted to, with the exception of the sensitivity test and PCR. A makeshift incubator wouldn't be that hard to fashion, TSA plates are cheap, gram stain kits are relatively cheap, and you can do a catalase test with hydrogen peroxide. I guess you'd need a decent microscope, but the hypothetical person that's gram staining their own cultures at home surely has one, right?
So the MRSA diagnosis is hard to swallow, but getting to staph aureus might be doable.
Totally agreed; I don't doubt that anyone on HN could do this in their own apartment with the right tools. Many HNers probably have done this in bio lab back in high school or college. I'm just doubtful of the actual claim of self-diagnosis of MRSA.
'carbocation is too nice to say it, but I'm not nice at all, so I will: the point is that it's hard to diagnose MRSA even if you have expertise and a full lab, and so it's nearly certain that the commenter above didn't actually "self-diagnose MRSA".
Oh, definitely. I'm just saying listing the steps in the diagnosis isn't, in and of itself, convincing, since most of them aren't actually that hard (and like carbocation says, you end up doing most of them in a college bio class), so at least figuring out that you have a staph infection isn't completely implausible (though like I said, the "MR" part of MRSA is probably harder).
It's still unlikely, though, firstly because PCR is hard, and secondly, because what person willing to go to that much effort wouldn't just go to the doctor?
For those reading along at home, none of those distinguish MRSA from a normal staph infection.
The primary distinguishing feature of MRSA vs regular staph aureus ("MSSA") is MRSA's resistance to oxacillin/methicillin. While you can find research papers distinguishing MRSA from MSSA on clinical grounds, I'm not familiar with any clinical distinguishing feature that is used in practice (aside from sensitivity analysis or PCR, which are laboratory techniques, not clinical ones).
What you are describing could be necrotizing fasciitis, and although MRSA is a common cause there are many classes of pathogens responsible. Any of them can constitute a medical emergency, and if not diagnosed and treated quickly a surgeon may need to butcher you to save your life. I've been in the OR for a debridement and you do not want to be that patient.
If you have pain way out of proportion and darkening skin (or any rash for that matter), that's not the time to play House. Call your doctor if you have one, or just go directly to the ER.
Gram stain, because it's very fast (minutes) and can tell you, e.g., that you have Gram positive cocci in clusters (thus, likely staphylococcus species).
Culture, then, to grow the bugs and see what nutritional requirements they have and what biochemical modifications they make. Catalase producing? Likely staph aureus.
Finally, sensitivities: resistant to oxacillin? MRSA.
One could imagine PCR-based tests, too, though at my institution such a test is not in use.
Getting back to my question, how did you successfully self-diagnose MRSA?