↓ Skip to main content

Updates on Clostridium difficile in Europe

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 5: Comparative Genomics of Clostridium difficile
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 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.
Chapter title
Comparative Genomics of Clostridium difficile
Chapter number 5
Book title
Updates on Clostridium difficile in Europe
Published in
Advances in experimental medicine and biology, January 2018
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-72799-8_5
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-3-31-972798-1, 978-3-31-972799-8
Authors

Sandra Janezic, Julian R. Garneau, Marc Monot, Janezic, Sandra, Garneau, Julian R., Monot, Marc

Abstract

Clostridium difficile, a gram-positive spore-forming anaerobic bacterium, has rapidly emerged as the leading cause of nosocomial diarrhoea in hospitals. The availability of genome sequences in large numbers, mainly due to the use of next-generation sequencing methods, have undoubtedly shown their immense advantages in the determination of the C. difficile population structure. The implementation of fine-scale comparative genomic approaches have paved the way to global transmission and recurrence studies, but also more targeted studies such as the PaLoc or the CRISPR/Cas systems. In this chapter, we provide an overview of the recent and significant findings on C. difficile using comparative genomics studies with implication for the epidemiology, infection control and understanding of the evolution of C. difficile.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 25%
Other 3 13%
Researcher 2 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 8%
Student > Master 2 8%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 5 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 21%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 8 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 11 May 2020.
All research outputs
#6,683,300
of 24,673,288 outputs
Outputs from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#1,031
of 5,223 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,315
of 452,832 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#31
of 238 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,673,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,223 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 452,832 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 238 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.