↓ Skip to main content

As a Bacterial Culture Medium, Citrated Sheep Blood Agar Is a Practical Alternative to Citrated Human Blood Agar in Laboratories of Developing Countries

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Microbiology, September 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
201 Mendeley
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.
Title
As a Bacterial Culture Medium, Citrated Sheep Blood Agar Is a Practical Alternative to Citrated Human Blood Agar in Laboratories of Developing Countries
Published in
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, September 2006
DOI 10.1128/jcm.02631-05
Pubmed ID
Authors

F. M. Russell, S. S. N. Biribo, G. Selvaraj, F. Oppedisano, S. Warren, A. Seduadua, E. K. Mulholland, J. R. Carapetis

Abstract

Human blood agar (HuBA) is widely used in developing countries for the isolation of bacteria from clinical specimens. This study compared citrated sheep blood agar (CSBA) and HuBA with defibrinated horse blood agar and defibrinated sheep blood agar (DSBA) for the isolation and antibiotic susceptibility testing of reference and clinical strains of Streptococcus pneumoniae, Streptococcus pyogenes, and Staphylococcus aureus. Reference and clinical strains of all organisms were diluted in brain heart infusion and a clinical specimen of cerebrospinal fluid and cultured on all agars. Viable counts, colony morphology, and colony size were recorded. Susceptibility testing for S. pneumoniae and S. pyogenes was performed on defibrinated sheep blood Mueller-Hinton agar, citrated sheep blood Mueller-Hinton agar (CSB MHA), and human blood Mueller-Hinton agar plates. For all organisms, the colony numbers were similar on all agars. Substantially smaller colony sizes and absent or minimal hemolysis were noted on HuBA for all organisms. Antibiotic susceptibility results for S. pneumoniae were similar for the two sheep blood agars; however, larger zone sizes were displayed on HuBA, and quality control for the reference strain failed on HuBA. For S. pyogenes, larger zone sizes were demonstrated on HuBA and CSBA than on DSBA. Poor hemolysis made interpretation of the zone sizes difficult on HuBA. CSBA is an acceptable alternative for the isolation of these organisms. The characteristic morphology is not evident, and hemolysis is poor on HuBA; and so HuBA is not recommended for use for the isolation or the susceptibility testing of any of these organisms. CSB MHA may be suitable for use for the susceptibility testing of S. pneumoniae.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Kenya 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Uganda 1 <1%
Unknown 198 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 47 23%
Student > Master 28 14%
Researcher 23 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 5%
Other 8 4%
Other 23 11%
Unknown 61 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 39 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 24 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 14 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 3%
Other 25 12%
Unknown 75 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 10 March 2022.
All research outputs
#8,261,140
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Microbiology
#6,163
of 14,316 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,818
of 88,385 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Microbiology
#70
of 158 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,316 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 88,385 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 158 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 55% of its contemporaries.