↓ Skip to main content

Incidence and Trends of Infections with Pathogens Transmitted Commonly Through Food and the Effect of Increasing Use of Culture-Independent Diagnostic Tests on Surveillance — Foodborne Diseases…

Overview of attention for article published in MMWR: Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
26 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
59 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
159 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
164 Mendeley
Title
Incidence and Trends of Infections with Pathogens Transmitted Commonly Through Food and the Effect of Increasing Use of Culture-Independent Diagnostic Tests on Surveillance — Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network, 10 U.S. Sites, 2013–2016
Published in
MMWR: Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, April 2017
DOI 10.15585/mmwr.mm6615a1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ellyn P. Marder, Paul R. Cieslak, Alicia B. Cronquist, John Dunn, Sarah Lathrop, Therese Rabatsky-Ehr, Patricia Ryan, Kirk Smith, Melissa Tobin-D’Angelo, Duc J. Vugia, Shelley Zansky, Kristin G. Holt, Beverly J. Wolpert, Michael Lynch, Robert Tauxe, Aimee L. Geissler

Abstract

Foodborne diseases represent a substantial public health concern in the United States. CDC's Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network (FoodNet) monitors cases reported from 10 U.S. sites* of laboratory-diagnosed infections caused by nine enteric pathogens commonly transmitted through food. This report describes preliminary surveillance data for 2016 on the nine pathogens and changes in incidences compared with 2013-2015. In 2016, FoodNet identified 24,029 infections, 5,512 hospitalizations, and 98 deaths caused by these pathogens. The use of culture-independent diagnostic tests (CIDTs) by clinical laboratories to detect enteric pathogens has been steadily increasing since FoodNet began surveying clinical laboratories in 2010 (1). CIDTs complicate the interpretation of FoodNet surveillance data because pathogen detection could be affected by changes in health care provider behaviors or laboratory testing practices (2). Health care providers might be more likely to order CIDTs because these tests are quicker and easier to use than traditional culture methods, a circumstance that could increase pathogen detection (3). Similarly, pathogen detection could also be increasing as clinical laboratories adopt DNA-based syndromic panels, which include pathogens not often included in routine stool culture (4,5). In addition, CIDTs do not yield isolates, which public health officials rely on to distinguish pathogen subtypes, determine antimicrobial resistance, monitor trends, and detect outbreaks. To obtain isolates for infections identified by CIDTs, laboratories must perform reflex culture(†); if clinical laboratories do not, the burden of culturing falls to state public health laboratories, which might not be able to absorb that burden as the adoption of these tests increases (2). Strategies are needed to preserve access to bacterial isolates for further characterization and to determine the effect of changing trends in testing practices on surveillance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 59 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 164 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 164 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 13%
Researcher 19 12%
Student > Master 19 12%
Student > Bachelor 14 9%
Other 12 7%
Other 31 19%
Unknown 47 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 12%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 17 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 11 7%
Other 28 17%
Unknown 50 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 253. 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 12 May 2019.
All research outputs
#146,303
of 25,473,687 outputs
Outputs from MMWR: Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report
#916
of 4,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,187
of 323,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age from MMWR: Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report
#19
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,473,687 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,249 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 336.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 323,526 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.