↓ Skip to main content

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?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
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).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 43 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Researcher 5 11%
Other 4 9%
Student > Master 4 9%
Other 8 18%
Unknown 11 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 27%
Engineering 3 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 15 34%

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
#4,206,432
of 5,038,248 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#2,432
of 2,668 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,157
of 122,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#124
of 133 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,038,248 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 2,668 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. 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 122,590 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 133 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.