| Title |
C. difficile ribotype 027 or 176?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Folia Microbiologica, June 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12223-014-0323-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marcela Krutova, Jana Matejkova, Otakar Nyc |
| Abstract |
Clostridium difficile is a major nosocomial pathogen of present times. The analysis of 624 C. difficile strains from 11 hospitals in the Czech Republic in 2013 revealed that 40 % of isolates belonged to ribotype 176. These results suggest that the incidence of CDI (C. difficile infection) in the Czech Republic has increased probably in connection with C. difficile ribotype 176. The molecular systems Xpert C. difficile Epi assay (Cepheid Inc., Sunnyvale, CA) diagnoses toxigenic strains and supports C. difficile ribotype 027 determination based on three specific target places in the toxigenic C. difficile genome. Twenty-nine strains cultivated from stool specimens were evaluated by the Xpert systems as presumed C. difficile PCR ribotype 027 were confirmed as a C. difficile ribotype 176 based on ribotyping. A further 120 C. difficile strains of ribotype 176 were examined for the presence of genes tcdB, cdtB and deletion in position 117 in the tcdC gene. Our experience shows that due to the correspondence of the target places, C. difficile ribotype 176 may be interpreted as ribotype 027 by Xpert C. difficile Epi assay (Cepheid Inc., Sunnyvale, CA). Further molecular analysis as ribotyping based on capillary electrophoresis is needed to differentiate between C. difficile ribotypes 027 and 176 for appropriate epidemiological situation control on local and national levels. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 14 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 4 | 29% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 29% |
| Researcher | 2 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 7% |
| Professor | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 29% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 21% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 21% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 7% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 1 | 7% |
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 01 July 2014.
All research outputs
#18,374,472
of 22,758,248 outputs
Outputs from Folia Microbiologica
#529
of 738 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#163,626
of 227,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Folia Microbiologica
#6
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,758,248 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 738 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 227,674 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.