↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of Enterococcus faecium Bacteremic Isolates from Hematologic and Non-hematologic Patients: Differences in Antimicrobial Resistance and Molecular Characteristics

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Laboratory Medicine, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 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
Comparison of Enterococcus faecium Bacteremic Isolates from Hematologic and Non-hematologic Patients: Differences in Antimicrobial Resistance and Molecular Characteristics
Published in
Annals of Laboratory Medicine, February 2018
DOI 10.3343/alm.2018.38.3.226
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sung-Yeon Cho, Yeon-Joon Park, Hanwool Cho, Dong Jin Park, Jin Kyung Yu, Hayeon Caitlyn Oak, Dong-Gun Lee

Abstract

Enterococcus faecium, especially vancomycin-resistant E. faecium (VREfm), is a major concern for patients with hematologic diseases. Exposure to antibiotics including fluoroquinolone, which is used as a routine prophylaxis for patients with hematologic (MH) diseases, has been reported to be a risk factor for infection with vancomycin-resistant eneterocci. We compared the characteristics of E. faecium isolates according to their vancomycin susceptibility and patient group (MH vs non-MH patients). A total of 120 E. faecium bacteremic isolates (84 from MH and 36 from non-MH patients) were collected consecutively, and their characteristics (susceptibility, multilocus sequence type [MLST], Tn1546 type, and the presence of virulence genes and plasmids) were determined. Among the vancomycin-susceptible E. faecium (VSEfm) isolates, resistance to ampicillin (97.6% vs 61.1%) and high-level gentamicin (71.4% vs 38.9%) was significantly higher in isolates from MH patients than in those from non-MH patients. Notably, hyl, esp, and pEF1071 were present only in isolates with ampicillin resistance. Among the VREfm isolates, ST230 (33.3%) and ST17 (26.2%) were predominant in MH patients, while ST17 (61.1%) was predominant in non-MH patients. Plasmid pLG1 was more prevalent in E. faecium isolates from MH patients than in those from non-MH patients, regardless of vancomycin resistance. Transposon analysis revealed five types across all VREfm isolates. The antimicrobial resistance profiles and molecular characteristics of E. faecium isolates differed according to the underlying diseases of patients within the same hospital. We hypothesize that the prophylactic use of fluoroquinolone might have an effect on these differences.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 28%
Researcher 2 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 7 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 11 August 2018.
All research outputs
#8,478,408
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Laboratory Medicine
#90
of 619 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,678
of 448,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Laboratory Medicine
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 619 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 448,179 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.