↓ Skip to main content

Retrospective identification of a previously undetected clinical case of OXA-48-producing K. pneumoniae and E. coli: the importance of adequate detection guidelines

Overview of attention for article published in Infection, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
Retrospective identification of a previously undetected clinical case of OXA-48-producing K. pneumoniae and E. coli: the importance of adequate detection guidelines
Published in
Infection, June 2015
DOI 10.1007/s15010-015-0805-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ina Willemsen, Joost van Esser, Marjolein Kluytmans-van den Bergh, Kai Zhou, John W. Rossen, Carlo Verhulst, Kees Verduin, Jan Kluytmans

Abstract

The laboratory detection of OXA-48-carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae is difficult, as minimum inhibition concentrations for carbapenems are often below the clinical breakpoint. In 2011, the Dutch national guideline for the detection of highly resistant micro-organisms was issued, which includes recommendations on the use of carbapenem screening breakpoints for the detection of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. During a validation study of the Check-MDR CT103 microarray (Check-Points, Wageningen, The Netherlands) in 2013, an OXA-48-like carbapenemase gen was identified in two isolates that were previously obtained from a patient with non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 2007. Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) and subsequent BLAST Ringe Image Generator (BRIG) analysis were performed to establish the presence of OXA-48 carbapenemase encoding plasmids and their similarity. This case report describes the first documented OXA-48-producing Klebsiella pneumonia (ST648) and Escherichia coli (ST866) in the Netherlands. A similar IncL/M plasmid was identified in both strains, suggesting within-patient horizontal transfer. This case illustrates that OXA-48-carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae can be unnoticed without adequate laboratory detection procedures. Our observation stresses the importance of uniform and adequate laboratory methods for the timely and accurate detection of important antimicrobial resistance.

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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 22%
Student > Master 6 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 7 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 17%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 17%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 9 25%
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 19 June 2015.
All research outputs
#20,378,256
of 25,047,899 outputs
Outputs from Infection
#1,247
of 1,561 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,758
of 272,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Infection
#17
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,047,899 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,561 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 272,211 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.