↓ Skip to main content

Clonal strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in paediatric and adult cystic fibrosis units

Overview of attention for article published in European Respiratory Journal, July 2004
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
100 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
Clonal strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in paediatric and adult cystic fibrosis units
Published in
European Respiratory Journal, July 2004
DOI 10.1183/09031936.04.00122903
Pubmed ID
Authors

M.R. O'Carroll, M.W. Syrmis, C.E. Wainwright, R.M. Greer, P. Mitchell, C. Coulter, T.P. Sloots, M.D. Nissen, S.C. Bell

Abstract

Despite recent reports of clonal strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis (CF) units, the need for routine microbiological surveillance remains contentious. Sputum was collected prospectively from productive patients attending the regional paediatric and adult CF units in Brisbane, Australia. All P. aeruginosa isolates were typed using pulsed-field gel electrophoresis. Spirometry, anthropometrics, hospitalisations and antibiotic sensitivity data were recorded. The first 100 sputum samples (first 50 patients at each clinic) harboured 163 isolates of P. aeruginosa. A total of 39 patients shared a common strain (pulsotype 2), 20 patients shared a strain with at least one other patient and 41 patients harboured unique strains. Eight patients shared a strain identical to a previously reported Australian transmissible strain (pulsotype 1). Compared with the unique strain group, patients harbouring pulsotype 2 were younger and had poorer lung function. Treatment requirements were similar in these two groups, as were the rates of multiresistance. In conclusion, 59% of patients harboured a clonal strain, supporting the need for routine microbiological surveillance. In contrast to previously described clonal strains, the dominant pulsotype was indistinguishable from nonclonal strains with respect to both colonial morphology and multiresistance. The clinical significance of clonal strains remains uncertain and requires longitudinal study.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Denmark 1 2%
Ireland 1 2%
Unknown 55 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 20%
Student > Master 11 19%
Researcher 5 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 12 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 13 22%
Attention Score in Context

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 19 November 2014.
All research outputs
#7,454,951
of 22,790,780 outputs
Outputs from European Respiratory Journal
#4,369
of 8,537 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,668
of 53,974 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Respiratory Journal
#13
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,790,780 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 8,537 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 53,974 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.