↓ Skip to main content

Continued in vitro cefazolin susceptibility in methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 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
Continued in vitro cefazolin susceptibility in methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus
Published in
Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12941-018-0257-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benjamin H. Gern, Alexander L. Greninger, Scott J. Weissman, Jennifer R. Stapp, Yue Tao, Xuan Qin

Abstract

In vitro trends of cefazolin and ceftriaxone susceptibilities from pediatric clinical isolates of methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) between 2011 and 2016 were analyzed for surveillance. Our laboratory continues to use agar disk diffusion for staphylococcal susceptibilities applying Clinical Laboratory Standard Institute's 2012 breakpoints. A total of 3992 MSSA clinical isolates in the last 6 years were analyzed for their in vitro cefazolin and ceftriaxone susceptibilities. While all MSSA isolates exhibited cefazolin susceptibilities within the "susceptible" zone range, there have been a proportion of isolates with ceftriaxone susceptibilities falling in "intermediate" zones, ranging from 2.6% in 2011 to 8.3% in 2016. Cefazolin continues to be the recommended agent for MSSA treatment at our institution, reflected by the finding that only 2% (6/321) of patients who received ceftriaxone as definitive therapy for MSSA bacteremia during the study period. We have confirmed the cefoxitin-predicted MSSA susceptibility to cefazolin, but have found concerning drifts in ceftriaxone susceptibilities by continued in vitro monitoring over the last 6 years.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 15%
Researcher 3 15%
Student > Postgraduate 3 15%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 10%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 4 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 45%
Environmental Science 2 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 10%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 5%
Unknown 6 30%
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 21 July 2023.
All research outputs
#16,371,088
of 24,119,703 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials
#362
of 641 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#215,175
of 334,611 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials
#9
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,119,703 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 641 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 334,611 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.