↓ Skip to main content

Urinary tract infections: epidemiology, mechanisms of infection and treatment options

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Reviews Microbiology, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
20 tweeters
facebook
10 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
3 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
532 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1532 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Urinary tract infections: epidemiology, mechanisms of infection and treatment options
Published in
Nature Reviews Microbiology, April 2015
DOI 10.1038/nrmicro3432
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ana L. Flores-Mireles, Jennifer N. Walker, Michael Caparon, Scott J. Hultgren

Abstract

Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are a severe public health problem and are caused by a range of pathogens, but most commonly by Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Proteus mirabilis, Enterococcus faecalis and Staphylococcus saprophyticus. High recurrence rates and increasing antimicrobial resistance among uropathogens threaten to greatly increase the economic burden of these infections. In this Review, we discuss how basic science studies are elucidating the molecular details of the crosstalk that occurs at the host-pathogen interface, as well as the consequences of these interactions for the pathophysiology of UTIs. We also describe current efforts to translate this knowledge into new clinical treatments for UTIs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 tweeters 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 1,532 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 8 <1%
Germany 3 <1%
Chile 3 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Other 5 <1%
Unknown 1505 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 346 23%
Student > Master 228 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 212 14%
Unspecified 182 12%
Researcher 154 10%
Other 410 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 391 26%
Unspecified 240 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 222 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 219 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 163 11%
Other 297 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 79. 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 27 August 2019.
All research outputs
#211,033
of 13,460,112 outputs
Outputs from Nature Reviews Microbiology
#80
of 2,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,810
of 224,200 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Reviews Microbiology
#1
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,460,112 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 2,083 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.8. 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 224,200 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 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 97% of its contemporaries.