| Title |
<em>Candida auris</em> in South Africa, 2012–2016 - Volume 24, Number 11—November 2018 - Emerging Infectious Diseases journal - CDC
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Emerging Infectious Diseases, November 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3201/eid2411.180368 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nelesh P. Govender, Rindidzani E. Magobo, Ruth Mpembe, Mabatho Mhlanga, Phelly Matlapeng, Craig Corcoran, Chetna Govind, Warren Lowman, Marthinus Senekal, Juno Thomas |
| Abstract |
To determine the epidemiology of Candida auris in South Africa, we reviewed data from public- and private-sector diagnostic laboratories that reported confirmed and probable cases of invasive disease and colonization for October 2012-November 2016. We defined a case as a first isolation of C. auris from any specimen from a person of any age admitted to any healthcare facility in South Africa. We defined probable cases as cases where the diagnostic laboratory had used a nonconfirmatory biochemical identification method and C. haemulonii was cultured. We analyzed 1,692 cases; 93% were from private-sector healthcare facilities, and 92% of cases from known locations were from Gauteng Province. Of cases with available data, 29% were invasive infections. The number of cases increased from 18 (October 2012-November 2013) to 861 (October 2015-November 2016). Our results show a large increase in C. auris cases during the study period, centered on private hospitals in Gauteng Province. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 | 7 | 26% |
| United Kingdom | 6 | 22% |
| Spain | 2 | 7% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 7% |
| South Africa | 1 | 4% |
| France | 1 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 7 | 26% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 12 | 44% |
| Members of the public | 11 | 41% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 87 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 13% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Researcher | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 13 | 15% |
| Unknown | 31 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 14 | 16% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 15% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 12 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Unknown | 32 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 54. 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 17 January 2024.
All research outputs
#768,327
of 25,177,382 outputs
Outputs from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#918
of 9,683 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,791
of 357,524 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emerging Infectious Diseases
#9
of 123 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,177,382 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,683 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 357,524 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 123 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 93% of its contemporaries.