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 |
Clostridium difficile infection in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic: first isolation and review of the literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Infectious Diseases, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12879-017-2737-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elaine Cheong, Tamalee Roberts, Sayaphet Rattanavong, Thomas V. Riley, Paul N. Newton, David A. B. Dance |
| Abstract |
Current knowledge of the epidemiology of Clostridium difficile infection in Asia, and in particular the Greater Mekong Subregion, is very limited. Only a few studies from Thailand and Vietnam have been reported from the region with variable testing methods and results, and no studies from Lao People's Democratic Republic (PDR). Therefore we investigated the presence of C. difficile in a single centre in the Lao PDR and determined the ribotypes present. Seventy unformed stool samples from hospital inpatients at Mahosot Hospital, Vientiane, were tested for the presence of C. difficile using selective differential agar and confirmed by latex agglutination. C. difficile isolates were further characterised by ribotyping and toxin gene detection. C. difficile was isolated from five of the 70 patients, and five different ribotypes were identified (014, 017, 020, QX 107 and QX 574). This is the first isolation of C. difficile from human stool samples in the Lao PDR. These results will add to the limited amount of data on C. difficile in the region. In addition, we hope this information will alert clinicians to the presence of C. difficile in the country and will help inform future investigations into the epidemiology and diagnosis of C. difficile in Lao PDR. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 33% |
| Australia | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 37 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 4 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 14 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 19% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 5 | 14% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 5% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 17 | 46% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 January 2018.
All research outputs
#14,081,725
of 23,003,906 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#3,609
of 7,720 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,283
of 318,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#77
of 151 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,003,906 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,720 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 318,503 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 151 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.