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 |
Detailed Contact Data and the Dissemination of Staphylococcus aureus in Hospitals
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLoS Computational Biology, March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004170 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas Obadia, Romain Silhol, Lulla Opatowski, Laura Temime, Judith Legrand, Anne C. M. Thiébaut, Jean-Louis Herrmann, Éric Fleury, Didier Guillemot, Pierre-Yves Boëlle |
| Abstract |
Close proximity interactions (CPIs) measured by wireless electronic devices are increasingly used in epidemiological models. However, no evidence supports that electronically collected CPIs inform on the contacts leading to transmission. Here, we analyzed Staphylococcus aureus carriage and CPIs recorded simultaneously in a long-term care facility for 4 months in 329 patients and 261 healthcare workers to test this hypothesis. In the broad diversity of isolated S. aureus strains, 173 transmission events were observed between participants. The joint analysis of carriage and CPIs showed that CPI paths linking incident cases to other individuals carrying the same strain (i.e. possible infectors) had fewer intermediaries than predicted by chance (P < 0.001), a feature that simulations showed to be the signature of transmission along CPIs. Additional analyses revealed a higher dissemination risk between patients via healthcare workers than via other patients. In conclusion, S. aureus transmission was consistent with contacts defined by electronically collected CPIs, illustrating their potential as a tool to control hospital-acquired infections and help direct surveillance. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 4% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 3% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Taiwan | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 103 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 34 | 29% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 13% |
| Other | 8 | 7% |
| Professor | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 24 | 21% |
| Unknown | 13 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 23% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 18 | 16% |
| Mathematics | 9 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 8 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 30 | 26% |
| Unknown | 20 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 107. 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 13 October 2020.
All research outputs
#393,594
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#273
of 8,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,581
of 278,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#9
of 171 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,964 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 278,674 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 171 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.