↓ Skip to main content

Accuracies of Leuconostocphenotypic identification: a comparison of API systems and conventional phenotypic assays

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, July 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

wikipedia
6 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
Accuracies of Leuconostocphenotypic identification: a comparison of API systems and conventional phenotypic assays
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, July 2007
DOI 10.1186/1471-2334-7-69
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wanla Kulwichit, Sumanee Nilgate, Tanittha Chatsuwan, Sunisa Krajiw, Chudaachhara Unhasuta, Anan Chongthaleong

Abstract

Commercial diagnostics are commonly used to identify gram-positive bacteria. Errors have been reported mostly at the species level. We have found certain phenotypic criteria used in API systems which significantly misidentify Leuconostoc, an emerging human pathogen, at the genus level. We also attempt to find practical, conventional phenotypic assays for accurate identification of this group of bacteria.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 3%
Unknown 33 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 21%
Student > Bachelor 5 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Lecturer 3 9%
Student > Master 3 9%
Other 8 24%
Unknown 4 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 35%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 15%
Environmental Science 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 7 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 21 November 2019.
All research outputs
#1,037,585
of 4,510,149 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#523
of 2,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,254
of 149,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#26
of 145 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,510,149 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 64th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,512 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 149,659 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 145 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.