↓ Skip to main content
Embed badge What is this page?

Assessing the role of undetected colonization and isolation precautions in reducing Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureustransmission in intensive care units

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, February 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike

What is this page?

Summary Twitter Dimensions citations
Title
Assessing the role of undetected colonization and isolation precautions in reducing Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureustransmission in intensive care units
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, February 2010
DOI 10.1186/1471-2334-10-29
Pubmed ID
20158891
Authors

Theodore Kypraios, Philip D O'Neill, Susan S Huang, Sheryl L Rifas-Shiman, Ben S Cooper

Abstract

Screening and isolation are central components of hospital methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) control policies. Their prevention of patient-to-patient spread depends on minimizing undetected and unisolated MRSA-positive patient days. Estimating these MRSA-positive patient days and the reduction in transmission due to isolation presents a major methodological challenge, but is essential for assessing both the value of existing control policies and the potential benefit of new rapid MRSA detection technologies. Recent methodological developments have made it possible to estimate these quantities using routine surveillance data.

View on publisher site

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 5%
United States 3 4%
France 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 75 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 19%
Student > Master 12 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Professor 6 7%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 10 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 34%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 18%
Mathematics 10 12%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 4%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 16 19%

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 25 October 2011.
All research outputs
#2,671,267
of 5,038,248 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#1,463
of 2,668 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,773
of 72,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#60
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,038,248 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,668 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 72,366 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.

This page is provided by Altmetric.