↓ Skip to main content

Reducing rates of Clostridium difficile infection by switching to a stand-alone NAAT with clear sampling criteria

Overview of attention for article published in Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
11 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
Reducing rates of Clostridium difficile infection by switching to a stand-alone NAAT with clear sampling criteria
Published in
Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13756-018-0332-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

E. Casari, C. De Luca, M. Calabrò, C. Scuderi, C. Daleno, A. Ferrario

Abstract

Clostridium difficile infection is an important cause of morbidity and mortality but the optimal method of diagnosis for both patient management and infection prevention remains controversial. Our hospital made a decision to switch from the use of toxin immunoassay to a stand-alone nucleic acid test. This change was accompanied by the provision of clear sampling guidance and rejection criteria and this study aimed to assess the impact of that change. We analysed sample numbers, numbers of positive results, and the proportion of cases assessed as healthcare acquired over a 6-year period during which the testing method was changed from a toxin A/B immunoassay to a stand-alone commercial nucleic acid test after the first two years. Sample numbers and numbers of cases assessed as healthcare acquired fell following the introduction of the nucleic acid test and sampling guidance, while infection rates in other hospitals in the same region remained relatively stable. It is our opinion that the use of a highly sensitive assay together with clear sampling guidance offers the optimal approach to patient management and best use of isolation facilities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 36%
Researcher 3 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 9%
Student > Master 1 9%
Unknown 2 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 9%
Social Sciences 1 9%
Other 1 9%
Unknown 2 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 03 April 2018.
All research outputs
#3,382,599
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control
#439
of 1,477 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,910
of 351,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control
#19
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,477 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 351,484 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 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 57% of its contemporaries.