| Title |
Transmission of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Infection Through Solid Organ Transplantation: Confirmation Via Whole Genome Sequencing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
American Journal of Transplantation, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1111/ajt.12898 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
J.M. Wendt, D. Kaul, B.M. Limbago, M. Ramesh, S. Cohle, A.M. Denison, E.M. Driebe, J.K. Rasheed, S.R. Zaki, D.M. Blau, C.D. Paddock, L.K. McDougal, D.M. Engelthaler, P.S. Keim, C.C. Roe, H. Akselrod, M.J. Kuehnert, S.V. Basavaraju |
| Abstract |
We describe two cases of donor-derived methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteremia that developed after transplantation of organs from a common donor who died from acute MRSA endocarditis. Both recipients developed recurrent MRSA infection despite appropriate antibiotic therapy, and required prolonged hospitalization and hospital readmission. Comparison of S. aureus whole genome sequence of DNA extracted from fixed donor tissue and recipients' isolates confirmed donor-derived transmission. Current guidelines emphasize the risk posed by donors with bacteremia from multidrug-resistant organisms. This investigation suggests that, particularly in the setting of donor endocarditis, even a standard course of prophylactic antibiotics may not be sufficient to prevent donor-derived infection. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | 20% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 3% |
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 32 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 18% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Researcher | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 7 | 21% |
| Unknown | 7 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 35% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 21% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 9 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 15 February 2022.
All research outputs
#6,754,661
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Transplantation
#1,866
of 5,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,533
of 262,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Transplantation
#16
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,058 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.2. 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 262,426 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.