↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review: the current status of carbapenem resistance in East Africa

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
133 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 systematic review: the current status of carbapenem resistance in East Africa
Published in
BMC Research Notes, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13104-018-3738-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kenneth Ssekatawa, Dennis K. Byarugaba, Edward Wampande, Francis Ejobi

Abstract

In this systematic review, we present the molecular epidemiology and knowledge gaps of the carbapenem resistance in East Africa as well as the future probable research interventions that can be used to address the emergence of carbapenem resistance in the region. The 17 articles which presented concrete information about the prevalence of carbapenem resistance in East Africa were reviewed. Tanzania exhibited the highest level of carbapenem resistance at 35% while DRC had the lowest level at 0.96%. Uganda was the only country with studies documenting CR obtained amongst hospital environment isolates with incidence ranging from 21% in Pseudomonas aeruginosa to 55% in Acinetobacter baumannii. Carbapenem resistance was more exhibited in A. baumannii (23%), followed by P. aeruginosa (17%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (15%), Proteus mirabilis (14%) and Escherichia coli (12%) mainly isolated from respiratory tract, blood, urine and wound/pus. The regional genetic determinants of carbapenem resistance detected were blaIMP, blaVIM-1 blaSPM-l, blaNDM-1, blaOXA-23 blaOXA-24, blaOXA-58 and blaKPC.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 133 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 20%
Researcher 14 11%
Student > Bachelor 13 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 8%
Student > Postgraduate 10 8%
Other 21 16%
Unknown 38 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Immunology and Microbiology 27 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 46 35%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 07 September 2018.
All research outputs
#4,020,999
of 13,480,923 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#764
of 3,056 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,920
of 265,433 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,480,923 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,056 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 265,433 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 60% 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