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 |
Shisha microbiota: the good, the bad and the not so ugly
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Research Notes, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13104-018-3553-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Julia Hani, Ghenwa Abdel Nour, Joanne Matta, Boushra Jazzar, Michael W. Pfaffl, Lara Hanna-Wakim, Afif M. Abdel Nour |
| Abstract |
Over the last decade, there has been a rapid expansion of the trendy water pipe smoking around the world especially among younger adults. The initial objective of this study was to identify the microbiota of the shisha, which may either be of no harm for the smoker or enhance the threat on his well-being. The total DNA for the metagenomics study was conducted on three different shishas from three different delivery shops in Jounieh, Lebanon. The microbiota in two solid parts of the shisha, shaft and hose, were analysed including the fresh tobacco and the water in the bowl. All samples were analysed using high-throughput sequencing of 16S rRNA gene amplicons. Overall, more than 40 bacterial genera were found in the three investigated shishas, some are commensal others are pathogenic. All three shishas showed similar microbial content regarding the bacteria inhabiting in water, shaft, or hose. From the results of this study it appears that a very large quantity of bacteria was found in the water pipes, some are harmful and others beneficial. We assume that the presence of gut dependent microbiota is related to the loose hygienic conditions in which the shisha is prepared. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 12% |
| Austria | 1 | 6% |
| Italy | 1 | 6% |
| Turkey | 1 | 6% |
| Germany | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 11 | 65% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 76% |
| Scientists | 3 | 18% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 15 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 7% |
| Researcher | 1 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 9 | 60% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 7% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 10 | 67% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 04 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,433,424
of 24,701,594 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#168
of 4,448 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,440
of 332,973 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#3
of 143 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,701,594 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,448 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. 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 332,973 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 143 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 98% of its contemporaries.