↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of the ability of four ESBL-screening media to detect ESBL-producing Salmonella and Shigella

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Microbiology, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 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
Evaluation of the ability of four ESBL-screening media to detect ESBL-producing Salmonella and Shigella
Published in
BMC Microbiology, September 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12866-014-0217-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kjersti Sturød, Ulf R Dahle, Einar Sverre Berg, Martin Steinbakk, Astrid L Wester

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the ability of four commercially available media for screening extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL) to detect and identify ESBL-producing Salmonella and Shigella in fecal samples.A total of 71 Salmonella- and 21 Shigella-isolates producing ESBLA and/or AmpC, were received at Norwegian Institute of Public Health between 2005 and 2012. The 92 isolates were mixed with fecal specimens and tested on four ESBL screening media; ChromID ESBL (BioMèrieux), Brilliance ESBL (Oxoid), BLSE agar (AES Chemunex) and CHROMagar ESBL (CHROMagar). The BLSE agar is a biplate consisting of two different agars. Brilliance and CHROMagar are supposed to suppress growth of AmpC-producing bacteria while ChromID and BLSE agar are intended to detect both ESBLA and AmpC.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 15%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Other 4 6%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 20 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Immunology and Microbiology 16 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 13%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 5 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 24 33%
Attention Score in Context

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 22 September 2014.
All research outputs
#18,379,018
of 22,764,165 outputs
Outputs from BMC Microbiology
#2,238
of 3,184 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,490
of 237,921 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Microbiology
#29
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,764,165 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 3,184 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. 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 237,921 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.