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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Fluorescence amplified fragment length polymorphism compared to pulsed field gel electrophoresis for Listeria monocytogenes subtyping
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Microbiology, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2180-13-14 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sophie Roussel, Benjamin Félix, Kathie Grant, Trinh Tam Dao, Anne Brisabois, Corinne Amar |
| Abstract |
Listeriosis is a severe infection which mainly affects pregnant women, neonates and immuno-compromised adults. ANSES's Laboratory for Food safety has been the European Union Reference Laboratory (EURL) for L. monocytogenes in the food chain since 2006. Pulsed Field Gel Electrophoresis (PFGE) is routinely used in the EURL for the surveillance of L. monocytogenes isolated from foods, animals and the environment. One of the main EURL activities is to evaluate alternative molecular subtyping methods to PFGE, and integrate their use within the National Reference Laboratories (NRL) network. Since 2008, the United Kingdom (UK)-NRL for L. monocytogenes at the Health Protection Agency (HPA), London, has used fluorescent Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism (fAFLP) for the routine surveillance of L. monocytogenes isolated from human clinical cases, food and food processing environments in the UK. This study compares fAFLP with PFGE for subtyping L. monocytogenes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 5% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 34 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 22% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 19% |
| Unknown | 4 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 16 | 43% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 14% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 8% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 11% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 08 February 2013.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from BMC Microbiology
#1,936
of 3,489 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,783
of 288,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Microbiology
#25
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,489 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 288,058 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.