↓ Skip to main content

Updates on Clostridium difficile in Europe

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 14: The ESCMID Study Group for Clostridium difficile: History, Role and Perspectives
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
The ESCMID Study Group for Clostridium difficile: History, Role and Perspectives
Chapter number 14
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_14
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-3-31-972798-1, 978-3-31-972799-8
Authors

John E. Coia, Ed J. Kuijper, Coia, John E., Kuijper, Ed J.

Abstract

C. difficile is a major nosocomial pathogen, but is also increasingly recognised as an important diarrhoeal pathogen in the community, not always associated with antibiotics. The European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) Study Group for Clostridium difficile (ESGCD) is a group of clinicians and scientists from many European countries and further afield, who share a common interest in C. difficile. The aims of the Study Group are centred around raising the profile of CDI in humans and animals, fostering collaboration amongst centres in different European countries and providing a forum for discussing and disseminating information. One of the principal aims of the Study Group is to raise awareness of C. difficile infections in European hospitals. ESGCD has a particular interest in the development and dissemination of European guidance on prevention, diagnosis and treatment of CDI. This chapter will discuss the organisation of ESGCD within the ESCMID Study Group structure, the origins of the Study Group, the aims and objectives of the group, and will highlight some of the past and present activities of ESGCD in relation to these.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 25%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 13%
Researcher 2 13%
Student > Master 2 13%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 3 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 31%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 3 19%
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 02 February 2018.
All research outputs
#17,927,741
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#3,112
of 4,961 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#310,382
of 442,354 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#136
of 237 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,961 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 442,354 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 237 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.