↓ Skip to main content

Outbreaks of virulent diarrheagenic Escherichia coli- are we in control?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Outbreaks of virulent diarrheagenic Escherichia coli- are we in control?
Published in
BMC Medicine, February 2012
DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-10-11
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dirk Werber, Gérard Krause, Christina Frank, Angelika Fruth, Antje Flieger, Martin Mielke, Lars Schaade, Klaus Stark

Abstract

Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) are the most virulent diarrheagenic E. coli known to date. They can be spread with alarming ease via food as exemplified by a large sprout-borne outbreak of STEC O104:H4 in 2011 that was centered in northern Germany and affected several countries. Effective control of such outbreaks is an important public health task and necessitates early outbreak detection, fast identification of the outbreak vehicle and immediate removal of the suspected food from the market, flanked by consumer advice and measures to prevent secondary spread.In our view, opportunities to improve control of STEC outbreaks lie in early clinical suspicion for STEC infection, timely diagnosis of all STEC at the serotype-level and integrating molecular subtyping information into surveillance systems. Furthermore, conducting analytical studies that supplement patients' imperfect food history recall and performing, as an investigative element, product tracebacks, are pivotal but underutilized tools for successful epidemiologic identification of the suspected vehicle in foodborne outbreaks. As a corollary, these tools are amenable to tailor microbiological testing of suspected food. Please see related article: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/10/12.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
United States 1 1%
Sweden 1 1%
Unknown 80 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 14%
Student > Master 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 11%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 8 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 35%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 8%
Engineering 3 4%
Environmental Science 3 4%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 10 12%
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 08 February 2012.
All research outputs
#13,863,476
of 22,662,201 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,848
of 3,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#151,522
of 247,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#26
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,662,201 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 3,397 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.6. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 247,293 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.