↓ Skip to main content

Species-driven interpretation guidelines in case of a single-sampling strategy for blood culture

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, April 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Species-driven interpretation guidelines in case of a single-sampling strategy for blood culture
Published in
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, April 2011
DOI 10.1007/s10096-011-1257-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

D. Leyssene, S. Gardes, P. Vilquin, J.-P. Flandrois, G. Carret, B. Lamy

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to define guidelines to interpret positive blood cultures (BCs) to distinguish bloodstream infection (BSI) from contamination in BCs drawn with a single venipuncture. During a 2-year period, each positive BC set (comprising six bottles from a single venipuncture) was prospectively categorised by clinicians, bacteriologists and hospital epidemiologists as BSI or contamination. For each case, the number of positive bottles per set, results from Gram staining and microorganism identification were analysed in order to define interpretation guidelines. We analysed 940 positive BC sets. The BSI rate in monomicrobial BC sets was positively correlated with the number of positive bottles. The positive predictive value was 88% with one and 100% with ≥2 positive bottles for Escherichia coli; 100% for Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas and Candida spp., regardless of the number of positive bottles; 3.5%, 61.1%, 78.9% and 100% for coagulase-negative staphylococci (CoNS) with one, two, three and ≥4 positive bottles, respectively. Using a single-sampling strategy, interpretation guidelines for monomicrobial positive BCs are based on the number of positive bottles per set, results from Gram staining and microorganism identification: ≥4 positive bottles (≥2 with Gram-negative bacilli) always led to a diagnosis of BSI. The CoNS BSI rate positively correlates with the number of positive bottles.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 38 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 20%
Student > Postgraduate 6 15%
Researcher 4 10%
Professor 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 7 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 63%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Unspecified 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 7 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 12 April 2012.
All research outputs
#14,142,336
of 22,661,413 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#1,686
of 2,767 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,595
of 109,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#26
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,661,413 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,767 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 109,262 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.