| Title |
Epidemiology of carbapenem resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae colonization in an intensive care unit
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, January 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10096-011-1506-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
B. D. Debby, O. Ganor, M. Yasmin, L. David, K. Nathan, T. Ilana, S. Dalit, G. Smollan, R. Galia |
| Abstract |
Carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKP) has emerged during recent years in several intensive care units. The objective of our study was to determine the incidence of CRKP and the risk factors associated with acquisition during intensive care unit (ICU) stay. This prospective cohort study was conducted between May 2007 and April 2008 in a medical-surgical ICU at a tertiary medical center. Rectal surveillance cultures were obtained from patients on admission and twice weekly. Of screened patients, 7.0% (21/299) were CRKP colonized on admission to the ICU. One hundred eighty (81%) patients were screened at least twice. Of these, 48 (27%) patients acquired CRKP during ICU stay. Of the 69 CRKP colonized patients (both imported and ICU acquired), 29% (20/69) were first identified by microbiologic cultures, while screening cultures identified 49 patients (71%). Of these, 23 (47%) subsequently developed clinical microbiological cultures. Independent risk factors for CRKP acquisition included recent surgery (OR 7.74; CI 3.42-17.45) and SOFA score on admission (OR 1.17; CI 1-1.22). In conclusion, active surveillance cultures detected a sizable proportion of CRKP colonized patients that were not identified by clinical cultures. Recent surgical procedures and patient severity were independently associated with CRKP acquisition. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 3% |
| Spain | 1 | 1% |
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 74 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 13 | 17% |
| Researcher | 12 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 12% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 13 | 17% |
| Unknown | 14 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 40% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 7 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Unknown | 19 | 24% |
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 23 April 2014.
All research outputs
#4,940,638
of 23,700,294 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#442
of 2,833 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,371
of 247,764 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#5
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,700,294 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,833 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 247,764 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 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 71% of its contemporaries.