| Title |
How is post-mortem microbiology appraised by pathologists? Results from a practice survey conducted by ESGFOR
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, February 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10096-017-2943-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
V. Saegeman, M. C. Cohen, J. Alberola, N. Ziyade, C. Farina, ESCMID Study Group for Forensic and Postmortem Microbiology, G. Cornaglia, A. Fernández-Rodríguez |
| Abstract |
Post-mortem microbiology (PMM) is an important tool in forensic pathology, assisting to determine the cause and manner of death. However, there is a lack of standardisation of PMM sampling. In order to get a better insight into the methods used, the available technical options and developmental needs, ESCMID Study Group for Forensic and Postmortem Microbiology (ESGFOR) members designed a survey aimed at pathologists regarding common practices of PMM in clinical and forensic autopsies. Multiple choice questions were developed based on Cumulative Techniques and Procedures in Clinical Microbiology (Cumitech). The questionnaire was sent to pathologists mainly across Europe and Turkey using SurveyMonkey. The survey had 147 respondents. Although all pathologists were aware of the existence of PMM, 39% (19/49) of the participants were not using it. The three main indications for PMM were: (i) clinical suspicion of an infection not confirmed antemortem (83%), (ii) infectious signs at autopsy (83%) and (iii) as part of a standard protocol for foetal/perinatal or paediatric death (67%). Almost 80% of the participants using PMM stated taking 1-10 samples per case. Of the requested examinations, a general bacteriological culture (96%) and a specific polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay for a particular infectious agent (34%) were most popular. The most frequent samples were: heart blood (66%), peripheral femoral blood (49%), spleen (64%) and lung (56%). Eighty-nine percent of the participants considered PMM a useful resource when investigating the cause of death. Although there are some common uses, this survey indicates that there is a need for improvement towards standardising sampling procedures in PMM. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 22% |
| Other | 6 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 6% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 8 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 31% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 8 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 January 2012.
All research outputs
#7,524,294
of 22,962,258 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#789
of 2,789 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,986
of 311,634 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#21
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,962,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,789 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 311,634 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 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 56% of its contemporaries.