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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Bacterial Causes of Empyema in Children, Australia, 2007–2009 - Volume 17, Number 10—October 2011 - Emerging Infectious Diseases journal - CDC
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Emerging Infectious Diseases, October 2011
|
| DOI | 10.3201/eid1710.101825 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Roxanne E. Strachan, Anita Cornelius, Gwendolyn L. Gilbert, Tanya Gulliver, Andrew Martin, Tim McDonald, Gillian M. Nixon, Rob Roseby, Sarath Ranganathan, Hiran Selvadurai, Greg Smith, Manuel Soto-Martinez, Sadasivam Suresh, Laurel Teoh, Kiran Thapa, Claire E. Wainwright, Adam Jaffé, on behalf of the Australian Research Network in Empyema |
| Abstract |
An increase in the incidence of empyema worldwide could be related to invasive pneumococcal disease caused by emergent nonvaccine replacement serotypes. To determine bacterial pathogens and pneumococcal serotypes that cause empyema in children in Australia, we conducted a 2-year study of 174 children with empyema. Blood and pleural fluid samples were cultured, and pleural fluid was tested by PCR. Thirty-two (21.0%) of 152 blood and 53 (33.1%) of 160 pleural fluid cultures were positive for bacteria; Streptococcus pneumoniae was the most common organism identified. PCR identified S. pneumoniae in 74 (51.7%) and other bacteria in 19 (13.1%) of 145 pleural fluid specimens. Of 53 samples in which S. pneumoniae serotypes were identified, 2 (3.8%) had vaccine-related and 51 (96.2%) had nonvaccine serotypes; 19A (n = 20; 36.4%), 3 (n = 18; 32.7%), and 1 (n = 8; 14.5%) were the most common. High proportions of nonvaccine serotypes suggest the need to broaden vaccine coverage. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | 2% |
| Portugal | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 43 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 18% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 11% |
| Other | 7 | 16% |
| Unknown | 5 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 67% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 13% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 5 | 11% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 26 March 2018.
All research outputs
#5,000,484
of 23,926,844 outputs
Outputs from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#4,089
of 9,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,746
of 134,768 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#33
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,926,844 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,314 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 134,768 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 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 56% of its contemporaries.