↓ Skip to main content

Detection of Bacteria Bearing Resistant Biofilm Forms, by Using the Universal and Specific PCR is Still Unhelpful in the Diagnosis of Periprosthetic Joint Infections

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Medicine, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
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
Detection of Bacteria Bearing Resistant Biofilm Forms, by Using the Universal and Specific PCR is Still Unhelpful in the Diagnosis of Periprosthetic Joint Infections
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, September 2014
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2014.00030
Pubmed ID
Authors

Batool H. Zegaer, Anastasios Ioannidis, George C. Babis, Vassiliki Ioannidou, Athanassios Kossyvakis, Sotiris Bersimis, Joseph Papaparaskevas, Efthimia Petinaki, Paraskevi Pliatsika, Stylianos Chatzipanagiotou

Abstract

Intraoperative conventional bacteriological cultures were compared with different polymerase chain reaction (PCR) methods in patients with total joint arthroplasties. The isolated bacteria were investigated for biofilm formation, and the biofilm forming strains, in their planktonic and biofilm forms, were further tested for their antimicrobial resistance against several clinically important antimicrobials. Forty four bone and joint samples were included and classified as infected or non-infected according to standard criteria for periprosthetic hip and knee infections. For the bacteriological diagnosis, conventional culture, two types of universal PCR and species specific PCR for three selected pathogens (Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa) were applied. Biofilm formation determination was performed by the tissue culture plate method. Antimicrobial susceptibility of the planktonic bacteria was performed by the minimal inhibitory concentration determination and, of the biofilm forms, by the minimal inhibitory concentration for bacterial regrowth from the biofilm. Twenty samples were culture positive, with S. epidermidis, S. aureus, or P. aeruginosa. All PCR methods were very ineffective in detecting only one pathogen. All isolates were biofilm positive and their biofilm forms, were highly resistant. In this study, compared to PCR, culture remains the "gold standard." The biofilm formation by the causative bacteria and the concomitant manifold increased antimicrobial resistance may explain the clinical failure of treatment in some cases and should be considered in the future for therapeutic planning.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

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.
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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 16%
Student > Master 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 5%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 6 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 21%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Unspecified 1 5%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 5 26%
Attention Score in Context

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 17 January 2015.
All research outputs
#14,915,133
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#2,657
of 7,178 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,047
of 246,372 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#7
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,178 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 246,372 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.