↓ Skip to main content

Characterisation and Carriage Ratio of Clostridium difficile Strains Isolated from a Community-Dwelling Elderly Population in the United Kingdom

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, August 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 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
Characterisation and Carriage Ratio of Clostridium difficile Strains Isolated from a Community-Dwelling Elderly Population in the United Kingdom
Published in
PLOS ONE, August 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0022804
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fabio Miyajima, Paul Roberts, Andrew Swale, Valerie Price, Maureen Jones, Michael Horan, Nicholas Beeching, Jonathan Brazier, Christopher Parry, Neil Pendleton, Munir Pirmohamed

Abstract

Community-associated Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) appears to be an increasing problem. Reported carriage rates by C. difficile are debatable with suggestions that primary asymptomatic carriage is associated with decreased risk of subsequent diarrhoea. However, knowledge of potential reservoirs and intestinal carriage rates in the community, particularly in the elderly, the most susceptible group, is limited. We have determined the presence of C. difficile in the faeces of a healthy elderly cohort living outside of long-term care facilities (LCFs) in the United Kingdom.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 74 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 29%
Other 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Student > Postgraduate 7 9%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 8 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 15%
Immunology and Microbiology 9 11%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 13 16%
Attention Score in Context

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 24 August 2011.
All research outputs
#15,234,609
of 22,651,245 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#129,675
of 193,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,873
of 123,981 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,606
of 2,479 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,651,245 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,366 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 123,981 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,479 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.