↓ Skip to main content

A retrospective study of the incidence, clinical characteristics, identification, and antimicrobial susceptibility of bacteremic isolates of Acinetobacter ursingii

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, September 2015
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
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
A retrospective study of the incidence, clinical characteristics, identification, and antimicrobial susceptibility of bacteremic isolates of Acinetobacter ursingii
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12879-015-1145-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chun-Hsiang Chiu, Yi-Tzu Lee, Yung-Chih Wang, Ti Yin, Shu-Chen Kuo, Ya-Sung Yang, Te-Li Chen, Jung-Chung Lin, Fu-Der Wang, Chang-Phone Fung

Abstract

Acinetobacter ursingii bacteremia is rarely reported. We investigated the incidence and clinical features of A. ursingii bacteremia, performance of the identification system, and antimicrobial susceptibility of the isolates. Acinetobacter ursingii bacteremia patients were compared with A. baumannii bacteremia patients. In this 9-year retrospective study, A. ursingii was identified using 16S rRNA and 16S-23S rRNA internal transcribed spacer sequence analysis. The performances of the Vitek 2, Phoenix, and matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometer systems for identifying isolates were tested. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) was used to determine the clonality of the isolates. The minimal inhibitory concentrations of the antimicrobials were determined using the Vitek 2 system. Nineteen patients were identified. Acinetobacter ursingii was noted in 1.5-5.2 % of all Acinetobacter bacteremia cases. For the PFGE analysis, two isolates had smeared DNA, two had 93 % similarity, and 15 had similarity <80 %. Among 16 patients with complete medical records, 10 (62.5 %) had no identifiable source of A. ursingii bacteremia. Most patients (n = 12) had underlying malignant disease. Patients with A. ursingii bacteremia had lower Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores than those with A. baumannii bacteremia (median [interquartile range], 17.1 [10.0-24.7] vs. 24.9 [14.6-35.1]). Patients with A. ursingii bacteremia were also less likely admitted to the intensive care unit than patients with A. baumannii bacteremia (18.8 % vs 63.5 %, p value < 0.01). About half of the patients with A. ursingii (50.8 %) and A. baumannii bacteremia (62.5 %) had received inappropriate antimicrobial therapy within 48 h after bacteremia onset. However, patients with A. ursingii bacteremia had significantly lower 14-day (6.25 % vs 29.8 %, p value = 0.04) and 28-day mortality rates (6.25 % vs 37.3 %, p value = 0.02) than patients with A. baumannii bacteremia. Nine isolates (47.4 %) were correctly identified as A. ursingii and the other 10 isolates (52.6 %) were incorrectly identified as A. lwoffii by the Vitek 2 system. The Phoenix system incorrectly identified all 19 isolates. The MALDI-TOF mass spectrometer system correctly identified all 19 isolates. All the A. ursingii isolates were resistant or showed intermediate susceptibility to ceftriaxone and ceftazidime, but were susceptible to levofloxacin and imipenem. Acinetobacter ursingii is a rare pathogen that mostly caused primary bacteremia in patients with malignancies. Patients with A. ursingii bacteremia had significantly lower disease severity and mortality rates than patients with A. baumannii bacteremia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 14%
Other 7 11%
Researcher 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Other 14 21%
Unknown 16 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 16 24%
Attention Score in Context

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 03 October 2022.
All research outputs
#14,643,481
of 24,557,820 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#3,675
of 8,212 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#135,131
of 279,540 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#85
of 172 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,557,820 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,212 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 279,540 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 172 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.