↓ Skip to main content

Microbiological diagnostic procedures for respiratory cystic fibrosis samples in Spain: towards standard of care practices

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

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Microbiological diagnostic procedures for respiratory cystic fibrosis samples in Spain: towards standard of care practices
Published in
BMC Microbiology, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12866-014-0335-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juan de Dios Caballero, Rosa del Campo, Marta Tato, Elia Gómez G de la Pedrosa, Marta Cobo, Carla López-Causapé, Enrique Gómez-Mampaso, Antonio Oliver, Rafael Cantón, Spanish Network for Cystic Fibrosis Microbiology Laboratories

Abstract

The microbiological procedures for cystic fibrosis (CF) samples of 17 participating Spanish centers were examined to verify their compliance with current international and national guidelines and to implement the best standards of care for microbiology practices. A 47-item questionnaire covering different CF microbiology aspects was sent to participant laboratories. Telephone interviews were performed when necessary. Data about samples processing for bacteria, mycobacteria and fungi were collected. Gene sequencing (71%), MALDI-TOF (59%) or both (94%) were available for most laboratories. Susceptibility testing was performed by automated microdilution systems (94%) and manual diffusion methods (59%). However, a low use of selective media for Staphylococcus aureus (59%) and Burkholderia cepacia complex (71%), and of epidemiological typing methods (41%) was reported. Most Spanish laboratories are in agreement with consensus guidelines for the processing of CF respiratory samples, but need to improve in the use of specific selective media and typing methods for epidemiologic studies.

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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 12%
Researcher 4 12%
Professor 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Other 9 27%
Unknown 7 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 21%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Mathematics 1 3%
Other 7 21%
Unknown 7 21%
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 02 March 2015.
All research outputs
#16,167,803
of 23,848,132 outputs
Outputs from BMC Microbiology
#1,839
of 3,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#215,333
of 359,165 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Microbiology
#39
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,848,132 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 3,302 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 359,165 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.