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 |
Método rápido para la detección de la sensibilidad a cefotaxima en enterobacterias
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Revista Argentina de Microbiología, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.ram.2016.08.002 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gemma Jiménez-Guerra, Yannik Hoyos-Mallecot, Javier Rodríguez-Granger, José María Navarro-Marí, José Gutiérrez-Fernández |
| Abstract |
In this work an "in house" rapid test based on the change in pH that is due to hydrolysis for detecting Enterobacteriaceae susceptible to cefotaxime is evaluated. The strains of Enterobacteriaceae from 1947 urine cultures were assessed using MicroScan panels and the "in house" test. This rapid test includes red phenol solution and cefotaxime. Using MicroScan panels, 499 Enterobacteriaceae isolates were evaluated, which included 27 isolates of Escherichia coli producing extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBL), 16 isolates of Klebsiella pneumoniae ESBL and 1 isolate of Klebsiella oxytoca ESBL. The "in house" test offers the following values: sensitivity 98% and specificity 97%, with negative predictive value 100% and positive predictive value 78%. The "in house" test based on the change of pH is useful in our area for detecting presumptively cefotaxime-resistant Enterobacteriaceae strains. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 2 | 67% |
| Singapore | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Peru | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 29 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 10% |
| Researcher | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 17% |
| Unknown | 9 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Immunology and Microbiology | 5 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 17% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 4 | 13% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 10 | 33% |
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 28 July 2017.
All research outputs
#16,720,137
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Revista Argentina de Microbiología
#87
of 327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#250,013
of 416,339 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista Argentina de Microbiología
#4
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 327 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 416,339 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 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 66% of its contemporaries.