↓ Skip to main content

Rates of, and risk factors for, septic arthritis in patients with invasive pneumococcal disease: prospective cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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
Rates of, and risk factors for, septic arthritis in patients with invasive pneumococcal disease: prospective cohort study
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12879-017-2797-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas J. Marrie, Gregory J. Tyrrell, Sumit R. Majumdar, Dean T. Eurich

Abstract

There are many case reports of septic arthritis complicating invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD); however, no study has compared patients with IPD with septic arthritis to those who didn't develop septic arthritis Thus, we aimed to determine the rates of, and risk factors for, septic arthritis in patients with invasive pneumococcal disease (IPD). Socio-demographic, clinical, and serological data were captured on all patients with IPD in Northern Alberta, Canada from 2000 to 2014. Septic arthritis was identified by attending physicians. Descriptive statistics and multivariate analyses were used to compare characteristics of those with septic arthritis and IPD to those who did not. Septic arthritis developed in 51 of 3251 (1.6%) of patients with IPD. Inability to walk independently, male sex, and underlying joint disease were risk factors for developing septic arthritis in patients with IPD. Capsular serotypes 22 and 12F were more common in patients with septic arthritis than those without. In patients with IPD, septic arthritis is uncommon. Certain risk factors such as walking with or without assistance and underlying joint disease make biological sense as damaged joints are more likely to be infected in the presence of bacteremia. Not applicable.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 13%
Professor 2 9%
Unspecified 2 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Student > Master 2 9%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 8 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 35%
Unspecified 2 9%
Psychology 1 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Neuroscience 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 9 39%

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 17 October 2017.
All research outputs
#10,643,827
of 12,002,078 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#3,863
of 4,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,709
of 284,435 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#240
of 296 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,002,078 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,443 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 284,435 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 296 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.