↓ Skip to main content

CMAJ

The evolving epidemiology of Clostridium difficile infection in Canadian hospitals during a postepidemic period (2009–2015)

Overview of attention for article published in Canadian Medical Association Journal, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
21 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
42 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
Title
The evolving epidemiology of Clostridium difficile infection in Canadian hospitals during a postepidemic period (2009–2015)
Published in
Canadian Medical Association Journal, June 2018
DOI 10.1503/cmaj.180013
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kevin C Katz, George R Golding, Kelly Baekyung Choi, Linda Pelude, Kanchana R Amaratunga, Monica Taljaard, Stephanie Alexandre, Jun Chen Collet, Ian Davis, Tim Du, Gerald A Evans, Charles Frenette, Denise Gravel, Susy Hota, Pamela Kibsey, Joanne M Langley, Bonita E Lee, Camille Lemieux, Yves Longtin, Dominik Mertz, Lorraine Maze Dit Mieusement, Jessica Minion, Dorothy L Moore, Michael R Mulvey, Susan Richardson, Michelle Science, Andrew E Simor, Paula Stagg, Kathryn N Suh, Geoffrey Taylor, Alice Wong, Nisha Thampi

Abstract

The clinical and molecular epidemiology of health care-associated Clostridium difficile infection in nonepidemic settings across Canada has evolved since the first report of the virulent North American pulsed-field gel electrophoresis type 1 (NAP1) strain more than 15 years ago. The objective of this national, multicentre study was to describe the evolving epidemiology and molecular characteristics of health care-associated C. difficile infection in Canada during a post-NAP1-epidemic period, particularly patient outcomes associated with the NAP1 strain. Adult inpatients with C. difficile infection were prospectively identified, using a standard definition, between 2009 and 2015 through the Canadian Nosocomial Infection Surveillance Program (CNISP), a network of 64 acute care hospitals. Patient demographic characteristics, severity of infection and outcomes were reviewed. Molecular testing was performed on isolates, and strain types were analyzed against outcomes and epidemiologic trends. Over a 7-year period, 20 623 adult patients admitted to hospital with health care-associated C. difficile infection were reported to CNISP, and microbiological data were available for 2690 patients. From 2009 to 2015, the national rate of health care-associated C. difficile infection decreased from 5.9 to 4.3 per 10 000 patient-days. NAP1 remained the dominant strain type, but infection with this strain has significantly decreased over time, followed by an increasing trend of infection with NAP4 and NAP11 strains. The NAP1 strain was significantly associated with a higher rate of death attributable to C. difficile infection compared with non-NAP1 strains (odds ratio 1.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29-2.82). Isolates were universally susceptible to metronidazole; one was nonsusceptible to vancomycin. The proportion of NAP1 strains within individual centres predicted their rates of health care-associated C. difficile infection; for every 10% increase in the proportion of NAP1 strains, the rate of health care-associated C. difficile infection increased by 3.3% (95% CI 1.7%-4.9%). Rates of health care-associated C. difficile infection have decreased across Canada. In nonepidemic settings, NAP4 has emerged as a common strain type, but NAP1, although decreasing, continues to be the predominant circulating strain and remains significantly associated with higher attributable mortality.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 42 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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 65 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 17%
Researcher 10 15%
Other 8 12%
Student > Master 6 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 15 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 22%
Immunology and Microbiology 9 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 17 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 206. 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 11 June 2023.
All research outputs
#192,423
of 25,660,026 outputs
Outputs from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#352
of 9,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,046
of 342,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#10
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,660,026 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,526 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 342,083 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 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.