↓ Skip to main content

Viral bacterial co-infection of the respiratory tract during early childhood

Overview of attention for article published in FEMS Microbiology Letters, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
99 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
166 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
Viral bacterial co-infection of the respiratory tract during early childhood
Published in
FEMS Microbiology Letters, May 2015
DOI 10.1093/femsle/fnv062
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jaelle C Brealey, Peter D Sly, Paul R Young, Keith J Chappell

Abstract

Acute respiratory infection (ARI) is an important cause of morbidity in children. Mixed aetiology is frequent, with pathogenic viruses and bacteria co-detected in respiratory secretions. However, the clinical significance of these viral/bacterial co-infections has long been a controversial topic. While severe bacterial pneumonia following influenza infection has been well described, associations are less clear among infections caused by viruses that are more common in young children, such as respiratory syncytial virus. Although assessing the overall contribution of bacteria to disease severity is complicated by the presence of many confounding factors in clinical studies, understanding the role of viral/bacterial co-infections in defining the outcome of paediatric ARI will potentially reveal novel treatment and prevention strategies, improving patient outcomes. This review summarises current evidence for the clinical significance of respiratory viral/bacterial co-infections in young children, discusses possible mechanisms of cooperative interaction between these pathogens, and highlights areas that require further investigation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 165 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 14%
Student > Master 21 13%
Student > Bachelor 14 8%
Student > Postgraduate 13 8%
Other 28 17%
Unknown 41 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 26%
Immunology and Microbiology 26 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 2%
Other 19 11%
Unknown 45 27%
Attention Score in Context

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 16 November 2017.
All research outputs
#6,410,375
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from FEMS Microbiology Letters
#1,419
of 5,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,960
of 279,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age from FEMS Microbiology Letters
#4
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,773 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 279,035 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.