↓ Skip to main content

Case–control study of pathogens involved in piglet diarrhea

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 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
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 3 3%
Unknown 93 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 16%
Student > Bachelor 12 13%
Student > Postgraduate 8 8%
Professor 6 6%
Other 21 22%
Unknown 18 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 27 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 3%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 22 23%

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
#3,004,433
of 6,956,879 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#739
of 1,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,309
of 305,057 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#54
of 149 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,956,879 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 54th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,827 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. 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 305,057 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 149 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.