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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Application of the multifactor dimensionality reduction method in evaluation of the roles of multiple genes/enzymes in multidrug-resistant acquisition in Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Epidemiology & Infection, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1017/s0950268815001788 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Z. YAO, Y. PENG, J. BI, C. XIE, X. CHEN, Y. LI, X. YE, J. ZHOU |
| Abstract |
Multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa (MDRPA) infections are major threats to healthcare-associated infection control and the intrinsic molecular mechanisms of MDRPA are also unclear. We examined 348 isolates of P. aeruginosa, including 188 MDRPA and 160 non-MDRPA, obtained from five tertiary-care hospitals in Guangzhou, China. Significant correlations were found between gene/enzyme carriage and increased rates of antimicrobial resistance (P < 0·01). gyrA mutation, OprD loss and metallo-β-lactamase (MBL) presence were identified as crucial molecular risk factors for MDRPA acquisition by a combination of univariate logistic regression and a multifactor dimensionality reduction approach. The MDRPA rate was also elevated with the increase in positive numbers of those three determinants (P < 0·001). Thus, gyrA mutation, OprD loss and MBL presence may serve as predictors for early screening of MDRPA infections in clinical settings. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
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 | 4 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 11% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 6% |
| Professor | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Unknown | 6 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 28% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 44% |
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 04 June 2016.
All research outputs
#14,915,476
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Epidemiology & Infection
#3,173
of 4,680 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,215
of 275,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Epidemiology & Infection
#20
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,680 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 275,744 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 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 62% of its contemporaries.