| Title |
Fungal Co-infections Associated with Global COVID-19 Pandemic: A Clinical and Diagnostic Perspective from China
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Mycopathologia, July 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11046-020-00462-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ge Song, Guanzhao Liang, Weida Liu |
| Abstract |
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has been sweeping across the globe. Based on a retrospective analysis of SARS and influenza data from China and worldwide, we surmise that the fungal co-infections associated with global COVID-19 might be missed or misdiagnosed. Although there are few publications, COVID-19 patients, especially severely ill or immunocompromised, have a higher probability of suffering from invasive mycoses. Aspergillus and Candida infections in COVID-19 patients will require early detection by a comprehensive diagnostic intervention (histopathology, direct microscopic examination, culture, (1,3)-β-D-glucan, galactomannan, and PCR-based assays) to ensure effective treatments. We suggest it is prudent to assess the risk factors, the types of invasive mycosis, the strengths and limitations of diagnostic methods, clinical settings, and the need for standard or individualized treatment in COVID-19 patients. We provide a clinical flow diagram to assist the clinicians and laboratory experts in the management of aspergillosis, candidiasis, mucormycosis, or cryptococcosis as co-morbidities in COVID-19 patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 121 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 17 | 14% |
| India | 11 | 9% |
| United Kingdom | 6 | 5% |
| Spain | 3 | 2% |
| Saudi Arabia | 3 | 2% |
| Oman | 1 | <1% |
| Cyprus | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 9 | 7% |
| Unknown | 68 | 56% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 94 | 78% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 17 | 14% |
| Scientists | 9 | 7% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 556 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 556 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 68 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 57 | 10% |
| Researcher | 37 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 37 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 35 | 6% |
| Other | 111 | 20% |
| Unknown | 211 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 124 | 22% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 47 | 8% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 41 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 32 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 24 | 4% |
| Other | 65 | 12% |
| Unknown | 223 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 129. 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 30 April 2023.
All research outputs
#328,970
of 25,826,146 outputs
Outputs from Mycopathologia
#4
of 1,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,157
of 428,203 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Mycopathologia
#1
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,826,146 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,179 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 428,203 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.