↓ Skip to main content

Diagnostic methods for mastitis in cows are not appropriate for use in humans: commentary

Overview of attention for article published in International Breastfeeding Journal, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 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
Diagnostic methods for mastitis in cows are not appropriate for use in humans: commentary
Published in
International Breastfeeding Journal, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13006-016-0061-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Linda J. Kvist

Abstract

Healthcare workers are now being targeted for marketing of diagnostic tools for mastitis that were developed for the dairy industry and which aim to provide information regarding choice of antibiotic treatment. Meanwhile, scientists are striving to understand how the human microbiome affects health and wellbeing and the importance of maintenance of bacterial balance in the human body. Breast milk supplies a multitude of bacteria to populate the baby's intestinal tract and kick-start the immune system. Researchers propose a paradigm shift in the understanding of bacterial content in breast milk and an alternative paradigm for the understanding of lactational mastitis: there is the beginning of evidence that many cases of lactational mastitis will resolve spontaneously. An international group of researchers is attempting to answer how dietary habits, birth mode, genetics and environmental factors may impact the bacterial content of breast milk. Until we have more comprehensive knowledge about the human milk microbiome, diagnostic aids for identification of women in need of antibiotic therapy for mastitis remain unreliable. Diagnostic aids could lead to the injudicious use of antibiotic therapy, which in turn may rob the infant of bacteria valuable for development of its immune system. The marketing of diagnostic aids for use in human medicine, that were originally developed for use in cows, is neither evidence-based nor good ethical practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 27%
Student > Master 10 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Other 2 4%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 10 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 8 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 10%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 11 22%
Unknown 12 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 April 2016.
All research outputs
#6,621,606
of 23,810,331 outputs
Outputs from International Breastfeeding Journal
#255
of 559 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,399
of 404,831 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Breastfeeding Journal
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,810,331 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 559 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.7. 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 404,831 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.