↓ Skip to main content

Epidemiology and acquisition of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in a septic orthopedic ward

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Epidemiology and acquisition of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in a septic orthopedic ward
Published in
SpringerPlus, March 2013
DOI 10.1186/2193-1801-2-91
Pubmed ID
Authors

Americo Agostinho, Gesuele Renzi, Thomas Haustein, Ghislaine Jourdan, Chantal Bonfillon, Mathieu Rougemont, Pierre Hoffmeyer, Stephan Harbarth, Ilker Uçkay

Abstract

Wards cohorting infected orthopaedic patients may be particularly prone to transmitting extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-E). We analyze their epidemic pattern by performing molecular typing of ESBL-E isolated from patients and healthcare workers (HCW) from our septic ward. Between March 2010 and November 2011, 186 patients were admitted. Among 565 anal swabs, ESBL-E were detected in 204 samples from 45 patients, suggesting prolonged carriage in affected patients. Among 25 cases with identical ESBL-E species and positive epidemiological links, only 9 were really attributable to our service. We also screened 41 healthcare workers (HCW) on 49 occasions during the study period. Six samples (13%) were positive. None of the ESBL-E detected in HCW were related to any of the patient isolates. Among 60 environmental samples taken at the peak of the epidemic none revealed ESBL-E. We conclude that HCW also were anal carriers of ESBL-E, however the ESBL- strains from the HCW were not the same strains isolated from patients in the septic ward. Moreover, the epidemiological attribution of ESBL by simple vicinity, timing, and species identification might grossly overestimate transmission within a given unit.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 5%
Unknown 18 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 21%
Student > Master 3 16%
Researcher 2 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Other 4 21%
Unknown 3 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 47%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 16%
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 08 March 2013.
All research outputs
#20,184,694
of 22,699,621 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#1,461
of 1,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,413
of 195,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#67
of 128 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,699,621 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 1,852 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 195,228 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 128 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.