↓ Skip to main content

Influenza-like illness outbreaks in nursing homes in Corsica, France, 2014–2015: epidemiological and molecular characterization

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
Influenza-like illness outbreaks in nursing homes in Corsica, France, 2014–2015: epidemiological and molecular characterization
Published in
SpringerPlus, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40064-016-2957-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

S. Masse, L. Minodier, G. Heuze, T. Blanchon, L. Capai, A. Falchi

Abstract

To study the molecular epidemiology of the influenza outbreaks in nursing homes (NHs) to determine whether multiple influenza strains were involved. From September to December 2014, NHs in Corsica were invited to participate in an ongoing daily epidemiological and microbiological surveillance for influenza-like illness (ILI) among residents and health care workers (HCWs). The study involved 12 NHs. Respiratory illness meeting the ILI case definition was observed among 44 residents from whom 22 specimens were collected. Of the 22 residents with a nasopharyngeal sample, 13 (59 %) were positive for at least one of the 11 pathogens analysed. Among these 13 patients, 11 (92 %) presented a confirmed influenza (A/H3N2) and two had another respiratory virus: one human metapneumovirus and one human coronavirus. Of patients with a confirmed influenza A(H3N2), 10 (91 %) were vaccinated against influenza during the 2014-2015 season. Two influenza outbreaks were reported in two NHs, caused by influenza A(H3N2) strains belonging to cluster 3C.3 and 3C.2a. Although antivirals were available, prophylaxis was not used. Phylogenetic analysis seems to suggest no multiple introduction into the two NHs reporting the two influenza A(H3N2) outbreaks. A number of factors could have contributed to transmitting influenza in NHs including, the absence of administration of antiviral treatment for prophylaxis of all residents/staff regardless of immunization status because of the poor vaccine match during each outbreak, the intensive contacts with incompletely protected residents and HCWs, and the low adherence of NHs to notification of ILI outbreaks to the health authorities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 19%
Researcher 5 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 16%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Librarian 3 9%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 4 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 9%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 6%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 8 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 August 2016.
All research outputs
#20,338,537
of 22,884,315 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#1,461
of 1,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#311,307
of 355,870 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#189
of 218 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,884,315 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,851 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 355,870 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 218 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.