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 |
Clinical identification of bacteria in human chronic wound infections: culturing vs. 16S ribosomal DNA sequencing
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Infectious Diseases, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2334-12-321 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Daniel D Rhoads, Stephen B Cox, Eric J Rees, Yan Sun, Randall D Wolcott |
| Abstract |
Chronic wounds affect millions of people and cost billions of dollars in the United States each year. These wounds harbor polymicrobial biofilm communities, which can be difficult to elucidate using culturing methods. Clinical molecular microbiological methods are increasingly being employed to investigate the microbiota of chronic infections, including wounds, as part of standard patient care. However, molecular testing is more sensitive than culturing, which results in markedly different results being reported to clinicians. This study compares the results of aerobic culturing and molecular testing (culture-free 16S ribosomal DNA sequencing), and it examines the relative abundance score that is generated by the molecular test and the usefulness of the relative abundance score in predicting the likelihood that the same organism would be detected by culture. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 198 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Poland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 192 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 32 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 29 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 26 | 13% |
| Researcher | 25 | 13% |
| Other | 9 | 5% |
| Other | 34 | 17% |
| Unknown | 43 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 40 | 20% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 32 | 16% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 23 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 22 | 11% |
| Unknown | 53 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 January 2013.
All research outputs
#18,321,703
of 22,687,320 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#5,557
of 7,643 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#214,506
of 276,400 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#102
of 147 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,687,320 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,643 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 276,400 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 147 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.