↓ Skip to main content

Cultivation-independent approach for the direct detection of bacteria in human clinical specimens as a tool for analysing culture-negative samples: a prospective study

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Cultivation-independent approach for the direct detection of bacteria in human clinical specimens as a tool for analysing culture-negative samples: a prospective study
Published in
SpringerPlus, March 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40064-016-1949-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ma. Guadalupe Aguilera-Arreola, Marcos Daniel Martínez-Peña, Fabiola Hernández-Martínez, Sara R. Juárez Enriques, Beatriz Rico Verdín, Cristina Majalca-Martínez, Graciela Castro-Escarpulli, Enrique Albarrán-Fernández, S. Cecilia Serrano-López

Abstract

Administration of empirical antibiotic therapy prior to microbiological diagnosis is thought to be associated the failure of subsequent bacterial growth in culture. The aim of this study was to detect bacterial pathogens via direct amplification and sequencing of the 16S rDNA gene in samples showing negative culture results as alternative diagnostic tools to troubleshoot difficult samples. Twenty-three (7.66 %) positive samples were detected, most of which were monomicrobial infections; 15 of the cases were identified as HAIs, 6 had catheter colonisation, and 2 had sample colonisation. The pathogens identified included Escherichia, Salmonella, Pseudomonas spp., Enterococcus spp. and coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS). The most frequent infections were bacteraemia and urinary tract infection, but meningitis, warm infection and soft tissue infection were also documented. These findings emphasise the efficacy and usefulness of molecular diagnosis, thus 16S rDNA gene analysis is strongly indicated by HAIs diagnostics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 5%
Unknown 21 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 18%
Researcher 3 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Other 2 9%
Other 7 32%
Unknown 1 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 41%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 9%
Unspecified 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 1 5%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 12 April 2016.
All research outputs
#14,256,395
of 22,860,626 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#770
of 1,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,706
of 299,398 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#62
of 157 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,860,626 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,849 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
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 299,398 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 157 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.