↓ Skip to main content

Survey of screening methods, rates and policies for the detection of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in English hospitals

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Hospital Infection, February 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#4 of 2,945)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
101 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 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.
Title
Survey of screening methods, rates and policies for the detection of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae in English hospitals
Published in
Journal of Hospital Infection, February 2019
DOI 10.1016/j.jhin.2018.08.005
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. Berry, K. Davies, N. Woodford, M. Wilcox, C. Chilton

Abstract

Multi-drug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria are of major clinical concern. The increasing prevalence of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (CPE), resistant to all beta-lactams including carbapenems and able to colonize the large intestine, represents a key threat. Rapid, accurate detection of intestinal CPE colonization is critical to minimize transmission, and hence reduce costly, difficult-to-treat CPE infections. There is currently no 'gold standard' CPE detection method. A survey of diagnostic laboratories in England found considerable heterogeneity in diagnostic CPE testing methods and procedures.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 3 13%
Student > Master 3 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Other 6 26%
Unknown 3 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 6 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 814. 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 28 October 2019.
All research outputs
#9,953
of 16,101,505 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Hospital Infection
#4
of 2,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#325
of 278,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Hospital Infection
#1
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,101,505 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,945 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 278,757 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 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.