↓ Skip to main content

Etiology of community-acquired pneumonia and diagnostic yields of microbiological methods: a 3-year prospective study in Norway

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, February 2015
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 (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
99 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 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
Etiology of community-acquired pneumonia and diagnostic yields of microbiological methods: a 3-year prospective study in Norway
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12879-015-0803-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jan C Holter, Fredrik Müller, Ola Bjørang, Helvi H Samdal, Jon B Marthinsen, Pål A Jenum, Thor Ueland, Stig S Frøland, Pål Aukrust, Einar Husebye, Lars Heggelund

Abstract

Despite recent advances in microbiological techniques, the etiology of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is still not well described. We applied polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and conventional methods to describe etiology of CAP in hospitalized adults and evaluated their respective diagnostic yields. 267 CAP patients were enrolled consecutively over our 3-year prospective study. Conventional methods (i.e., bacterial cultures, urinary antigen assays, serology) were combined with nasopharyngeal (NP) and oropharyngeal (OP) swab samples analyzed by real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) for Streptococcus pneumoniae, and by real-time PCR for Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Chlamydophila pneumoniae, Bordetella pertussis and 12 types of respiratory viruses. Etiology was established in 167 (63%) patients with 69 (26%) patients having ≥1 copathogen. There were 75 (28%) pure bacterial and 41 (15%) pure viral infections, and 51 (19%) viral-bacterial coinfections, resulting in 126 (47%) patients with bacterial and 92 (34%) patients with viral etiology. S. pneumoniae (30%), influenza (15%) and rhinovirus (12%) were most commonly identified, typically with ≥1 copathogen. During winter and spring, viruses were detected more frequently (45%, P=.01) and usually in combination with bacteria (39%). PCR improved diagnostic yield by 8% in 64 cases with complete sampling (and by 15% in all patients); 5% for detection of bacteria; 19% for viruses (P=.04); and 16% for detection of ≥1 copathogen. Etiology was established in 79% of 43 antibiotic-naive patients with complete sampling. S. pneumoniae qPCR positive rate was significantly higher for OP swab compared to NP swab (P<.001). Positive rates for serology were significantly higher than for real-time PCR in detecting B. pertussis (P=.001) and influenza viruses (P<.001). Etiology could be established in 4 out of 5 CAP patients with the aid of PCR, particularly in diagnosing viral infections. S. pneumoniae and viruses were most frequently identified, usually with copathogens. Viral-bacterial coinfections were more common than pure infections during winter and spring; a finding we consider important in the proper management of CAP. When swabbing for qPCR detection of S. pneumoniae in adult CAP, OP appeared superior to NP, but this finding needs further confirmation. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01563315 .

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters 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 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 113 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 14%
Student > Master 16 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 13%
Student > Bachelor 15 13%
Other 13 11%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 23 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 39%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 28 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 25 September 2019.
All research outputs
#3,287,851
of 19,208,681 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#997
of 6,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,292
of 353,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,208,681 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,718 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 353,030 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them