↓ Skip to main content

Prevalence of Clostridium difficile colonization among healthcare workers

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
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.
Title
Prevalence of Clostridium difficile colonization among healthcare workers
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, October 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2334-13-459
Pubmed ID
Authors

N Deborah Friedman, James Pollard, Douglas Stupart, Daniel R Knight, Masoomeh Khajehnoori, Elise K Davey, Louise Parry, Thomas V Riley

Abstract

Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) has increased to epidemic proportions in recent years. The carriage of C. difficile among healthy adults and hospital inpatients has been established. We sought to determine whether C. difficile colonization exists among healthcare workers (HCWs) in our setting. A point prevalence study of stool colonization with C. difficile among doctors, nurses and allied health staff at a large regional teaching hospital in Geelong, Victoria. All participants completed a short questionnaire and all stool specimens were tested by Techlab® C.diff Quik Check enzyme immunoassay followed by enrichment culture. Among 128 healthcare workers, 77% were female, of mean age 43 years, and the majority were nursing staff (73%). Nineteen HCWs (15%) reported diarrhoea, and 12 (9%) had taken antibiotics in the previous six weeks. Over 40% of participants reported having contact with a patient with known or suspected CDI in the 6 weeks before the stool was collected. C. difficile was not isolated from the stool of any participants. Although HCWs are at risk of asymptomatic carriage and could act as a reservoir for transmission in the hospital environment, with the use of a screening test and culture we were unable to identify C. difficile in the stool of our participants in a non-outbreak setting. This may reflect potential colonization resistance of the gut microbiota, or the success of infection prevention strategies at our institution.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 77 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 19%
Researcher 12 15%
Other 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Other 18 23%
Unknown 11 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 18%
Immunology and Microbiology 9 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 14 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 03 November 2013.
All research outputs
#1,616,342
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#407
of 7,931 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,189
of 210,474 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#6
of 146 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,931 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 210,474 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 146 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 96% of its contemporaries.