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 |
Case–control study of pathogens involved in piglet diarrhea
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Research Notes, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13104-015-1751-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Vera L. A. Ruiz, Josete G. Bersano, Aline F. Carvalho, Márcia H. B. Catroxo, Daniela P. Chiebao, Fábio Gregori, Simone Miyashiro, Alessandra F. C. Nassar, Trícia M. F. S. Oliveira, Renato A. Ogata, Eliana P. Scarcelli, Paloma O. Tonietti |
| Abstract |
Diarrhea in piglets directly affects commercial swine production. The disease results from the interaction of pathogens with the host immune system and is also affected by management procedures. Several pathogenic agents such as Campylobacter spp., Clostridium perfringens, Escherichia coli, Salmonella spp., group A rotavirus (RV-A), coronaviruses (transmissible gastroenteritis virus; porcine epidemic diarrhea virus), as well as nematode and protozoan parasites, can be associated with disease cases. All bacterial, viral, protozoan, and parasitic agents here investigated, with the exception of Salmonella spp. as well as both coronaviruses, were detected in varying proportions in piglet fecal samples, and positive animals were equally distributed between case and control groups. A statistically significant difference between case and control groups was found only for Cystoisospora suis (p = 0.034) and Eimeria spp. (p = 0.047). When co-infections were evaluated, a statistically significant difference was found only for C. perfringens β2 and C. suis (p = 0.014). The presence of pathogens in piglets alone does not determine the occurrence of diarrhea episodes. Thus, the indiscriminate use of antibiotic and anthelminthic medication should be re-evaluated. This study also reinforces the importance of laboratory diagnosis and correct interpretation of results as well as the relevance of control and prophylactic measures. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 3 | 3% |
| Unknown | 95 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 17 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 9% |
| Professor | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 21 | 21% |
| Unknown | 18 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 27 | 28% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 22 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 8% |
| Unknown | 22 | 22% |
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 13 January 2016.
All research outputs
#14,243,953
of 22,837,982 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,956
of 4,266 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,705
of 394,936 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#65
of 139 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,837,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,266 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 394,936 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 139 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.