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 do hospital professionals involved in a randomised controlled trial perceive the value of genotyping vs. PCR-ribotyping for control of hospital acquired C. difficile infections?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Infectious Diseases, March 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2334-14-154 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ala Szczepura, Susan Manzoor, Katherine Hardy, Nigel Stallard, Helen Parsons, Savita Gossain, Peter M Hawkey |
| Abstract |
Despite scientific advances in typing of C. difficile strains very little is known about how hospital staff use typing results during periods of increased incidence (PIIs). This qualitative study, undertaken alongside a randomised controlled trial (RCT), explored this issue. The trial compared ribotyping versus more rapid genotyping (MLVA or multilocus variable repeat analysis) and found no significant difference in post 48 hour cases (C difficile transmissions). |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 48 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 16% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 10% |
| Researcher | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 10% |
| Other | 9 | 18% |
| Unknown | 12 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 8% |
| Engineering | 3 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 6% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 16% |
| Unknown | 16 | 33% |
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 24 March 2014.
All research outputs
#20,224,618
of 22,749,166 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#6,454
of 7,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,378
of 223,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#141
of 149 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,749,166 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,665 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 223,393 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 149 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.