Culture-independent diagnostic tests (CIDT) are increasingly used to identify enteric pathogens. However, foodborne illness surveillance systems have relied upon culture confirmation to estimate disease burden and identify outbreaks through molecular subtyping. This study examined the impacts of CIDT and estimated costs for culture verification of Shigella, Salmonella, Shiga-Toxin producing E. coli (STEC), and Campylobacter at the Tennessee Department of Health Public Health Laboratory (PHL).
This observational study included laboratory and epidemiological surveillance data collected between years 2013-2016 from patients with the reported enteric illness. We calculated pathogen recovery at PHL based on initial diagnostic test type reported at the clinical laboratory. Adjusted prevalence ratios (PR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated with Modified Poisson Regression. Estimates of cost were calculated for pathogen recovery from CIDT positive specimens compared to recovery from culture-derived isolates.
During the study period, PHL received 5553 specimens from clinical laboratories from patients with the enteric illness. Pathogen recovery was 57% (984/1713) from referred CIDT positive stool specimens and 95% (3662/3840) from culture-derived isolates (PR=0.61, 95% CI: 0.56-0.66). Pathogen recovery from CIDT-positive specimens varied based on pathogen type: Salmonella (72%), Shigella (64%), STEC (57%) and Campylobacter (26%). Compared to stool culture-derived isolates, the cost to recover pathogens from 100 CIDT positive specimens was higher for Shigella ($6,192), Salmonella ($18,373) and STEC ($27,783).
Pathogen recovery was low from CIDT positive specimens for enteric bacteria. This has important implications for the current enteric disease surveillance system, outbreak detection and costs for public health programs.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 04 July 2024.
All research outputs
#3,318,066
of 33,732,945 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Infectious Diseases
#5,960
of 20,565 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,282
of 493,401 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Infectious Diseases
#64
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,732,945 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,565 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 493,401 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 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 63% of its contemporaries.
