↓ Skip to main content

Cross sectional study of multiresistant bacteria in Danish emergency departments: prevalence, patterns and risk factors for colonization (AB-RED project)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Emergency Medicine, August 2018
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
3 X users

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
Cross sectional study of multiresistant bacteria in Danish emergency departments: prevalence, patterns and risk factors for colonization (AB-RED project)
Published in
BMC Emergency Medicine, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12873-018-0178-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christian B. Mogensen, Helene Skjøt-Arkil, Annmarie T. Lassen, Isik S. Johansen, Ming Chen, Poul Petersen, Karen V. Andersen, Svend Ellermann-Eriksen, Jørn M. Møller, Marc Ludwig, David Fuglsang-Damgaard, Finn Nielsen, Dan B. Petersen, Ulrich S. Jensen, Flemming S. Rosenvinge

Abstract

Multiresistant bacteria (MRB) is an increasing problem. Early identification of patients with MRB is mandatory to avoid transmission and to target the antibiotic treatment. The emergency department (ED) is a key player in the early identification of patients who are colonized with MRB. There is currently sparse knowledge of both prevalence and risk factors for colonization with MRSA, ESBL, VRE, CPE and CD in acutely admitted patients in Western European countries including Denmark. To develop evidence-based screening tools for identifying carriers of resistant bacteria among acutely admitted patients, systematic collection of information on risk factors and exposures is required. Since a geographical variation is suspected, it is desirable to include emergency departments across the country. The aim of this project is to provide a comprehensive overview of prevalence and risk factors for MRSA, ESBL, VRE, CPE and CD colonization in patients admitted to Danish ED's. The objectives are to describe the prevalence and demography of resistance, co-infections, to identify risk factors for carrier state and to develop and validate a screening tool for identification of carriers. Multicenter descriptive and analytic cross-sectional survey from January-May 2018 of around 10.000 acutely admitted patients > 18 years in 8 EDs for carrier state and risk factors for antibiotic resistant bacteria. Information about the background and possible risk factors for carrier status together with swabs from the nose, throat and rectum is collected and analyzed for MRSA, ESBL, VRE, CPE and CD. The prevalence of the resistant bacteria are calculated at hospital level, regional level and national level and described with relation to residency, sex, age and risk factors. A screening model for identification of carrier stage of resistant bacteria is developed and validated. The study will provide the prevalence of colonized patients with resistant bacteria on arrival to the ED and variation in demographic patterns, and will develop a clinical tool to identify certain risk groups. This will enable the clinician to target antibiotic treatments and to reduce the in-hospital spreading of resistant bacteria. This knowledge is important for implementing and evaluating antimicrobial stewardships, screening and infection control strategies. Clinicaltrials.gov : NCT03352167 (registration date: 20. November 2017).

X Demographics

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.
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 %
Researcher 10 15%
Student > Master 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Other 4 6%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 22 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 12%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 3%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 22 33%
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 14 November 2018.
All research outputs
#14,139,149
of 23,100,534 outputs
Outputs from BMC Emergency Medicine
#420
of 764 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,707
of 333,688 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Emergency Medicine
#9
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,100,534 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 764 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 333,688 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.