↓ Skip to main content

A population-based matched cohort study examining the mortality and costs of patients with community-onset Clostridium difficile infection identified using emergency department visits and hospital…

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
17 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A population-based matched cohort study examining the mortality and costs of patients with community-onset Clostridium difficile infection identified using emergency department visits and hospital admissions
Published in
PLOS ONE, March 2017
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0172410
Pubmed ID
Authors

Natasha Nanwa, Beate Sander, Murray Krahn, Nick Daneman, Hong Lu, Peter C. Austin, Anand Govindarajan, Laura C. Rosella, Suzanne M. Cadarette, Jeffrey C. Kwong

Abstract

Few studies have evaluated the mortality or quantified the economic burden of community-onset Clostridium difficile infection (CDI). We estimated the attributable mortality and costs of community-onset CDI. We conducted a population-based matched cohort study. We identified incident subjects with community-onset CDI using health administrative data (emergency department visits and hospital admissions) in Ontario, Canada between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2010. We propensity-score matched each infected subject to one uninfected subject and followed subjects in the cohort until December 31, 2011. We evaluated all-cause mortality and costs (unadjusted and adjusted for survival) from the healthcare payer perspective (2014 Canadian dollars). During our study period, we identified 7,950 infected subjects. The mean age was 63.5 years (standard deviation = 22.0), 62.7% were female, and 45.0% were very high users of the healthcare system. The relative risk for 30-day, 180-day, and 1-year mortality were 7.32 (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.94-9.02), 3.55 (95%CI, 3.17-3.97), and 2.59 (95%CI, 2.37-2.83), respectively. Mean attributable cumulative 30-day, 180-day, and 1-year costs (unadjusted for survival) were $7,434 (95%CI, $7,122-$7,762), $12,517 (95%CI, $11,687-$13,366), and $13,217 (95%CI, $12,062-$14,388). Mean attributable cumulative 1-, 2-, and 3-year costs (adjusted for survival) were $10,700 (95%CI, $9,811-$11,645), $13,312 (95%CI, $12,024-$14,682), and $15,812 (95%CI, $14,159-$17,571). Infected subjects had considerably higher risk of all-cause mortality and costs compared with uninfected subjects. This study provides insight on an understudied patient group. Our study findings will facilitate assessment of interventions to prevent community-onset CDI.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 17%
Student > Master 11 15%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 4 6%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 21 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 11 15%
Unknown 27 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 28 March 2018.
All research outputs
#1,318,219
of 22,947,506 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#17,308
of 195,553 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,468
of 310,485 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#448
of 4,553 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,947,506 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 195,553 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 310,485 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,553 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.