Despite increasing infection rates, Clostridium difficile is not currently routinely tested for in all diarrhoeal faecal specimens in Australia. In July 2014, all diarrhoeal specimens submitted to a diagnostic laboratory in Western Australia were surveyed to determine the true prevalence of C. difficile. In total, 1010 diarrhoeal non-duplicate faecal specimens were received during the month. Testing for C. difficile was requested, or the criteria for a C. difficile investigation were met, for 678 specimens which were investigated by PCR for the tcdB gene using the BD MAX platform, followed by toxigenic culture on PCR positive samples. The remaining 332 specimens, with either no C. difficile test request or the criteria for a C. difficile investigation were not met, were examined by toxigenic culture. All isolates were PCR ribotyped. C. difficile was the most commonly detected diarrhoeal pathogen among all specimens. The overall prevalence of C. difficile in all 1010 specimens was 6.4%; 7.2% in the routinely tested group, and 4.8% in the non-requested group. The proportion of non-requested positive detections among all cases was 24.6%. Community-onset infection was present in 50.8% of all cases. The median age of all CDI cases was 60.0 years and the age range in CDI patients in the routine group was 0.6-96.6 years (median 72.7 years), compared to 0.2-2.3 years (median 0.8 years) in the non-requested group. The most common ribotype (RT) found was RT 014/020 (34.1% in the routine group, 43.8% in the non-requested group), followed by RTs 002, 056, 005 and 018. While the routine testing group and the non-requested group differed markedly in age and patient classification, C. difficile was the most common cause of diarrhoea in hospitals and the community in Western Australia. The significance of finding C. difficile in the community paediatric population requires further study.
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 28 November 2015.
All research outputs
#17,286,645
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Anaerobe
#756
of 1,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,166
of 393,313 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anaerobe
#15
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,234 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. 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 393,313 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
