| Title |
Assessing the role of undetected colonization and isolation precautions in reducing Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureustransmission in intensive care units
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Infectious Diseases, February 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2334-10-29 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Theodore Kypraios, Philip D O'Neill, Susan S Huang, Sheryl L Rifas-Shiman, Ben S Cooper |
| Abstract |
Screening and isolation are central components of hospital methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) control policies. Their prevention of patient-to-patient spread depends on minimizing undetected and unisolated MRSA-positive patient days. Estimating these MRSA-positive patient days and the reduction in transmission due to isolation presents a major methodological challenge, but is essential for assessing both the value of existing control policies and the potential benefit of new rapid MRSA detection technologies. Recent methodological developments have made it possible to estimate these quantities using routine surveillance data. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 4% |
| United States | 3 | 3% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Australia | 1 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 81 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 17 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 9% |
| Professor | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 19 | 21% |
| Unknown | 13 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 29 | 32% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 15 | 16% |
| Mathematics | 10 | 11% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 6 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 11% |
| Unknown | 19 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 25 October 2011.
All research outputs
#15,237,301
of 22,655,397 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#4,425
of 7,630 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,925
of 94,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#30
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,655,397 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,630 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 94,009 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.