| Title |
Serious fungal infections in Chile
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10096-017-2925-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
E. Alvarez Duarte, D. W. Denning |
| Abstract |
The incidence and prevalence of fungal infections in Chile are unknown. Here, we have estimated the burden of serious fungal diseases from data obtained from clinical reports, WHO reports, Chilean census, OECD reports and comprehensive literature search available on PubMed and SciELO, among other scientific resources. Due the lack of official data about fungal diseases, frequencies were calculated based on the specific populations at risk. Recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis (>4 episodes/year) is estimated to occur in 3108/100,000. Using a low international average rate of 5/100,000, we estimate 878 candidaemia cases and 132 patients with intra-abdominal candidiasis. Due to the low incidence of pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) in Chile, limited numbers of patients with chronic pulmonary aspergillosis are likely: a total of 1212, 25% following TB. Invasive aspergillosis is estimated to affect 296 patients following leukaemia therapy, transplantation and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), 1.7/100,000. In addition, allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA) and severe asthma with fungal sensitisation (SAFS) were estimated to be around 97.9/100,000 and 127/100,000 respectively, in 675,772 adult asthmatics and 1700 CF patients. Given a 38,000 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) population, with around 2189 new cases of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) annually, cryptococcal meningitis and Pneumocystis pneumonia are estimated at 0.12/100,000 and 4.3/100,000, respectively. In total, 325,000 (1.9%) people in Chile develop serious fungal infections annually. Respiratory fungal disease predominates in Chile; a national action plan for fungal disease is urgently needed, including epidemiological studies to validate the estimates. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 84 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 18% |
| Unknown | 25 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 31% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 5% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 11% |
| Unknown | 28 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 31 May 2017.
All research outputs
#1,439,169
of 22,955,959 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#77
of 2,788 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,808
of 422,694 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#5
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,955,959 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,788 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 422,694 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.