↓ Skip to main content

Validation of genotype cluster investigations for Mycobacterium tuberculosis: application results for 44 clusters from four heterogeneous United States jurisdictions

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
Title
Validation of genotype cluster investigations for Mycobacterium tuberculosis: application results for 44 clusters from four heterogeneous United States jurisdictions
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12879-016-1937-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Larry D. Teeter, Padmaja Vempaty, Duc T. M. Nguyen, Jane Tapia, Sharon Sharnprapai, Smita Ghosh, J. Steven Kammerer, Roque Miramontes, Wendy A. Cronin, Edward A. Graviss

Abstract

Tracking the dissemination of specific Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) strains using genotyped Mtb isolates from tuberculosis patients is a routine public health practice in the United States. The present study proposes a standardized cluster investigation method to identify epidemiologic-linked patients in Mtb genotype clusters. The study also attempts to determine the proportion of epidemiologic-linked patients the proposed method would identify beyond the outcome of the conventional contact investigation. The study population included Mtb culture positive patients from Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts and Houston, Texas. Mtb isolates were genotyped by CDC's National TB Genotyping Service (NTGS) from January 2006 to October 2010. Mtb cluster investigations (CLIs) were conducted for patients whose isolates matched exactly by spoligotyping and 12-locus MIRU-VNTR. CLIs were carried out in four sequential steps: (1) Public Health Worker (PHW) Interview, (2) Contact Investigation (CI) Evaluation, (3) Public Health Records Review, and (4) CLI TB Patient Interviews. Comparison between patients whose links were identified through the study's CLI interviews (Step 4) and patients whose links were identified earlier in CLI (Steps 1-3) was conducted using logistic regression. Forty-four clusters were randomly selected from the four study sites (401 patients in total). Epidemiologic links were identified for 189/401 (47 %) study patients in a total of 201 linked patient-pairs. The numbers of linked patients identified in each CLI steps were: Step 1 - 105/401 (26.2 %), Step 2 - 15/388 (3.9 %), Step 3 - 41/281 (14.6 %), and Step 4 - 28/119 (30 %). Among the 189 linked patients, 28 (14.8 %) were not identified in previous CI. No epidemiologic links were identified in 13/44 (30 %) clusters. We validated a standardized and practical method to systematically identify epidemiologic links among patients in Mtb genotype clusters, which can be integrated into the TB control and prevention programs in public health settings. The CLI interview identified additional epidemiologic links that were not identified in previous CI. One-third of the clusters showed no epidemiologic links despite being extensively investigated, suggesting that some improvement in the interviewing methods is still needed.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 8 33%
Researcher 4 17%
Student > Master 4 17%
Other 3 13%
Lecturer 2 8%
Other 3 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 10 42%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 05 December 2016.
All research outputs
#2,285,472
of 8,723,542 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#1,038
of 3,853 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,026
of 245,826 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#60
of 218 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,723,542 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 60th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,853 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 69% 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 245,826 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 218 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 71% of its contemporaries.