↓ Skip to main content

Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: comparison of two periods and a predictive model of mortality

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases, December 2002
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia: comparison of two periods and a predictive model of mortality
Published in
Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases, December 2002
DOI 10.1590/s1413-86702002000600004
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lucieni de Oliveira Conterno, Sérgio Barsanti Wey, Adauto Castelo

Abstract

Staphylococcus aureus is an important pathogen causing bacteremia, primarily affecting hospitalized patients. We studied the epidemiology of S. aureus bacteremia, comparing two periods (early and mid 1990s) and developed a predictive model of mortality. A nested case-control was done. All 251 patients over 14 years old with positive blood cultures for S. aureus were selected. MRSA (methicillin resistant S. aureus) was isolated in 63% of the cases. When comparing the two periods MRSA community-acquired bacteremia increased from 4% to 16% (p=0.01). There was no significant difference in the mortality rate between the two periods (39% and 33%, p=0.40). Intravascular catheters provoked 24% of the cases of bacteremia and were associated with the lowest rate of mortality. In a logistic regression analysis, three variables were associated with death: septic shock, source of bacteraemia and resistance to methicillin. The probability of dying among patients with MRSA and those with methicillin sensitive S. aureus bacteraemia ranged from 10% to 90% and from 4% to 76%, respectively, depending on the source of the bacteraemia and the occurrence of septic shock. The MRSA found in Brazil may be a particularly virulent strain.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 4%
Unknown 27 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 21%
Researcher 5 18%
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Professor 2 7%
Other 6 21%
Unknown 2 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 43%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 5 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 23 April 2014.
All research outputs
#8,535,684
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases
#149
of 809 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,214
of 135,793 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 809 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 135,793 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them