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 |
How to Optimize the Use of Blood Cultures for the Diagnosis of Bloodstream Infections? A State-of-the Art
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Microbiology, May 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00697 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Brigitte Lamy, Sylvie Dargère, Maiken C. Arendrup, Jean-Jacques Parienti, Pierre Tattevin |
| Abstract |
Bloodstream infection (BSI) is a major cause of death in developed countries and the detection of microorganisms is essential in managing patients. Despite major progress has been made to improve identification of microorganisms, blood culture (BC) remains the gold standard and the first line tool for detecting BSIs. Consensus guidelines are available to ensure optimal BSI procedures, but BC practices often deviate from the recommendations. This review provides an update on clinical and technical issues related to blood collection and to BC performance, with a special focus on the blood sample strategy to optimize the sensitivity and specificity of BCs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 States | 4 | 15% |
| Malaysia | 2 | 7% |
| Mexico | 2 | 7% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 7% |
| Brazil | 1 | 4% |
| Syrian Arab Republic | 1 | 4% |
| Germany | 1 | 4% |
| Chile | 1 | 4% |
| Colombia | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 10 | 37% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 18 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 22% |
| Scientists | 3 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 480 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 480 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 62 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 47 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 47 | 10% |
| Other | 42 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 38 | 8% |
| Other | 91 | 19% |
| Unknown | 153 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 152 | 32% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 40 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 24 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 21 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 3% |
| Other | 59 | 12% |
| Unknown | 171 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 110. 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 31 October 2023.
All research outputs
#382,028
of 25,448,590 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#207
of 29,374 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,159
of 326,383 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#10
of 585 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,448,590 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 29,374 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. 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 326,383 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 585 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.