The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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 |
A pandemic within a pandemic? Admission to COVID-19 wards in hospitals is associated with increased prevalence of antimicrobial resistance in two African settings
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials, April 2023
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12941-023-00575-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Linzy Elton, Muzamil Mahdi Abdel Hamid, John Tembo, Hana Elbadawi, Kwitaka Maluzi, Mohammed H. Abdelraheem, Teresa Cullip, Caren Kabanda, Kerry Roulston, Isobella Honeyborne, Margaret J Thomason, Kamal Elhag, Alaelddin Mohammed, Abdelsalam Adam, Kangwa Mulonga, Kapatiso Sikakena, Peter Matibula, Mwewa Kabaso, Ruth Nakazwe, Sombo Fwoloshi, Alimuddin Zumla, Timothy D McHugh |
| Abstract |
Patients who develop severe illness due to COVID-19 are more likely to be admitted to hospital and acquire bacterial co-infections, therefore the WHO recommends empiric treatment with antibiotics. Few reports have addressed the impact of COVID-19 management on emergence of nosocomial antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in resource constrained settings. This study aimed to ascertain whether being admitted to a COVID-19 ward (with COVID-19 infection) compared to a non-COVID-19 ward (as a COVID-19 negative patient) was associated with a change in the prevalence of bacterial hospital acquired infection (HAI) species or resistance patterns, and whether there were differences in antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) and infection prevention and control (IPC) guidelines between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 wards. The study was conducted in Sudan and Zambia, two resource constrained settings with differing country-wide responses to COVID-19. Patients suspected of having hospital acquired infections were recruited from COVID-19 wards and non-COVID-19 wards. Bacteria were isolated from clinical samples using culture and molecular methods and species identified. Phenotypic and genotypic resistance patterns were determined by antibiotic disc diffusion and whole genome sequencing. Infection prevention and control guidelines were analysed for COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 wards to identify potential differences. 109 and 66 isolates were collected from Sudan and Zambia respectively. Phenotypic testing revealed significantly more multi-drug resistant isolates on COVID-19 wards in both countries (Sudan p = 0.0087, Zambia p = 0.0154). The total number of patients with hospital acquired infections (both susceptible and resistant) increased significantly on COVID-19 wards in Sudan, but the opposite was observed in Zambia (both p = ≤ 0.0001). Genotypic analysis showed significantly more β-lactam genes per isolate on COVID-19 wards (Sudan p = 0.0192, Zambia p = ≤ 0.0001). Changes in hospital acquired infections and AMR patterns were seen in COVID-19 patients on COVID-19 wards compared to COVID-19 negative patients on non-COVID-19 wards in Sudan and Zambia. These are likely due to a potentially complex combination of causes, including patient factors, but differing emphases on infection prevention and control, and antimicrobial stewardship policies on COVID-19 wards were highlighted. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 12% |
| Zambia | 1 | 6% |
| Peru | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 13 | 76% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 59% |
| Scientists | 6 | 35% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 5% |
| Librarian | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 12 | 60% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Engineering | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 14 | 70% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 26 September 2023.
All research outputs
#1,992,309
of 26,198,325 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials
#30
of 690 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,681
of 427,975 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,198,325 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 690 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 427,975 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.