↓ Skip to main content

Microbiology of diabetic foot infections: from Louis Pasteur to ‘crime scene investigation’

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, January 2015
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 (92nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
114 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
244 Mendeley
Title
Microbiology of diabetic foot infections: from Louis Pasteur to ‘crime scene investigation’
Published in
BMC Medicine, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-014-0232-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne Spichler, Bonnie L Hurwitz, David G Armstrong, Benjamin A Lipsky

Abstract

Were he alive today, would Louis Pasteur still champion culture methods he pioneered over 150 years ago for identifying bacterial pathogens? Or, might he suggest that new molecular techniques may prove a better way forward for quickly detecting the true microbial diversity of wounds? As modern clinicians faced with treating complex patients with diabetic foot infections (DFI), should we still request venerated and familiar culture and sensitivity methods, or is it time to ask for newer molecular tests, such as 16S rRNA gene sequencing? Or, are molecular techniques as yet too experimental, non-specific and expensive for current clinical use? While molecular techniques help us to identify more microorganisms from a DFI, can they tell us 'who done it?', that is, which are the causative pathogens and which are merely colonizers? Furthermore, can molecular techniques provide clinically relevant, rapid information on the virulence of wound isolates and their antibiotic sensitivities? We herein review current knowledge on the microbiology of DFI, from standard culture methods to the current era of rapid and comprehensive 'crime scene investigation' (CSI) techniques.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 244 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 242 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 16%
Student > Bachelor 34 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 11%
Researcher 24 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 7%
Other 54 22%
Unknown 50 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 58 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 26 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 26 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 8%
Other 32 13%
Unknown 58 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 17 June 2015.
All research outputs
#2,246,261
of 25,390,970 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,523
of 4,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,458
of 354,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#29
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,390,970 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,005 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 354,616 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 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 54% of its contemporaries.