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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Wound care antiseptics - performance differences against Staphylococcus aureus in biofilm
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13028-015-0111-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lene K Vestby, Live L Nesse |
| Abstract |
Staphylococcus aureus is commonly isolated from infected wounds both in animals and humans. It is known to be an excellent biofilm former and biofilms are present in as many as 60% of chronic wounds. Despite that the presence of biofilms in infections are common, antiseptics are usually qualified for in vivo testing according to their effect on planktonic cells. As it is well known that bacteria in biofilms are more tolerant to antiseptics than planktonic bacteria, biofilm infections can be difficult to treat. The aim of the study was to compare three different categories of antiseptics, biguanide (chlorhexidine), quaternary ammonium compound (QAC; Pyrisept) and iodine/iodophores (2% iodine liniment), with regards to efficacy in killing S. aureus in biofilm. If there was observed a difference in efficacy between these antiseptics, a second aim was to find the most effective of the three antiseptics. Large differences in the bactericidal effect of the different antiseptics against S. aureus in biofilm were observed in the present study. Iodine treatment was found to be the most effective followed by Pyrisept and chlorhexidine. The bactericidal effect of the different antiseptics used in the present study was found to vary significantly against S. aureus in biofilm. The present study gives valuable knowledge with regards to selecting the antiseptics that are most likely to be successful in treating biofilm infected wounds. This study also contributes to focus attention on the importance of qualifying antiseptics based on results using biofilm bacteria rather than planktonic bacteria. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Arab Emirates | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Portugal | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 43 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 17% |
| Researcher | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 15% |
| Unknown | 13 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 11% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 9% |
| Engineering | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 17% |
| Unknown | 15 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 June 2015.
All research outputs
#15,740,207
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica
#360
of 837 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,375
of 279,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica
#7
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 837 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 279,058 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.