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 |
The effect of using blood culture bottle of bronchoalveolar larvage fluid in pneumonia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Infectious Diseases, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12879-016-1591-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eun Young Heo, Sue Shin, Hee Soon Chung, Yun-Jeong Jeong, So Hee Oh, Deog Kyeom Kim |
| Abstract |
Pneumonia is a primary cause of morbidity and mortality in infectious disease, and increasing antimicrobial resistance has raised concerns of treatment failure. Therefore, we evaluated the value of a blood culture bottle for bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) samples on pathogen identification and on treatment modification in patients with pneumonia. We conducted a prospective study and enrolled 39 patients who were hospitalized for pneumonia. Enrolled patients underwent BAL; a 10-ml aliquot was transferred to a sterile container for standard quantitative culture, and a 5 ml aliquot was transferred to both an aerobic and an anaerobic blood culture bottle. Microbes were detected in all 39 (100 %) specimens and possible pathogens were identified in 34 patients (84.6 %) from BAL blood culture bottles. In contrast, microbes were detected in 10 patients (25.6 %) and possible pathogens were isolated in 8 patients (20.5 %) in BAL fluid using conventional culture methods. Finally, 8 of 39 (20.5 %) patients changed antibiotics according to the BAL blood culture results and pneumonia improved in 6 of these patients. Using blood culture bottles for BAL sampling in patients with pneumonia is a sensitive method to detect pathogens in order to identify an adequate antibiotic treatment regimen. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 33% |
| Colombia | 1 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 13% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 11 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 30% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 15 | 50% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 12 June 2016.
All research outputs
#15,377,214
of 22,876,619 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#4,483
of 7,691 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#212,916
of 340,764 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#82
of 149 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,876,619 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,691 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 340,764 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.