↓ Skip to main content

Understanding Pseudomonas status among adults with cystic fibrosis: a real-world comparison of the Leeds criteria against clinicians’ decision

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
Title
Understanding Pseudomonas status among adults with cystic fibrosis: a real-world comparison of the Leeds criteria against clinicians’ decision
Published in
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10096-017-3168-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhe Hui Hoo, Frank Peter Edenborough, Rachael Curley, Laura Prtak, Jane Dewar, Mark Ivan Allenby, Julia Anne Nightingale, Martin James Wildman

Abstract

Pseudomonas aeruginosa status influences cystic fibrosis (CF) clinical management but no 'gold standard' definition exists. The Leeds criteria are commonly used but may lack sensitivity for chronic P. aeruginosa. We compared clinicians' decision with the Leeds criteria in three adult CF centres. Two independent prospective datasets (Sheffield dataset, n = 185 adults; ACtiF pilot dataset, n = 62 adults from two different centres) were analysed. Clinicians involved in deciding P. aeruginosa status were blinded to the study objectives. Clinicians considered more adults with CF to have chronic P. aeruginosa infection compared to the Leeds criteria. This was more so for the Sheffield dataset (106/185, 57.3% with clinicians' decision vs. 80/185, 43.2% with the Leeds criteria; kappa coefficient between these two methods 0.72) compared to the ACtiF pilot dataset (34/62, 54.8% with clinicians' decision vs. 30/62, 48.4% with the Leeds criteria; kappa coefficient between these two methods 0.82). However, clinicians across different centres were relatively consistent once age and severity of lung disease, as indicated by the type of respiratory samples provided, were taken into account. Agreement in P. aeruginosa status was similar for both datasets among adults who predominantly provided sputum samples (kappa coefficient 0.78) or adults > 25 years old (kappa coefficient 0.82). Across three different centres, clinicians did not always agree with the Leeds criteria and tended to consider the Leeds criteria to lack sensitivity. Where disagreement occurred, clinicians tended to diagnose chronic P. aeruginosa infection because other relevant information was considered. These results suggest that a better definition for chronic P. aeruginosa might be developed by using consensus methods to move beyond a definition wholly dependent on standard microbiological results.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Student > Master 2 8%
Other 5 20%
Unknown 8 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Immunology and Microbiology 6 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Psychology 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 9 36%
Attention Score in Context

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 08 January 2018.
All research outputs
#15,487,739
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#1,891
of 2,792 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,082
of 442,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#31
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,792 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 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 442,080 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.