↓ Skip to main content

Prevalence and Strain Characterization of Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile in Representative Regions of Germany, Ghana, Tanzania and Indonesia – A Comparative Multi-Center Cross-Sectional Study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, August 2018
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
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 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
Prevalence and Strain Characterization of Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile in Representative Regions of Germany, Ghana, Tanzania and Indonesia – A Comparative Multi-Center Cross-Sectional Study
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2018.01843
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mwanaisha Seugendo, Iryna Janssen, Vanessa Lang, Irene Hasibuan, Wolfgang Bohne, Paul Cooper, Rolf Daniel, Katrin Gunka, R. L. Kusumawati, Stephen E. Mshana, Lutz von Müller, Benard Okamo, Jan R. Ortlepp, Jörg Overmann, Thomas Riedel, Maja Rupnik, Ortrud Zimmermann, Uwe Groß

Abstract

Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile infections (CDI) are considered worldwide as emerging health threat. Uptake of C. difficile spores may result in asymptomatic carrier status or lead to CDI that could range from mild diarrhea, eventually developing into pseudomembranous colitis up to a toxic megacolon that often results in high mortality. Most epidemiological studies to date have been performed in middle- and high income countries. Beside others, the use of antibiotics and the composition of the microbiome have been identified as major risk factors for the development of CDI. We therefore postulate that prevalence rates of CDI and the distribution of C. difficile strains differ between geographical regions depending on the regional use of antibiotics and food habits. A total of 593 healthy control individuals and 608 patients suffering from diarrhea in communities in Germany, Ghana, Tanzania and Indonesia were selected for a comparative multi-center cross-sectional study. The study populations were screened for the presence of C. difficile in stool samples. Cultured C. difficile strains (n = 84) were further subtyped and characterized using PCR-ribotyping, determination of toxin production, and antibiotic susceptibility testing. Prevalence rates of C. difficile varied widely between the countries. Whereas high prevalence rates were observed in symptomatic patients living in Germany and Indonesia (24.0 and 14.7%), patients from Ghana and Tanzania showed low detection rates (4.5 and 6.4%). Differences were also obvious for ribotype distribution and toxin repertoires. Toxin A+/B+ ribotypes 001/072 and 078 predominated in Germany, whereas most strains isolated from Indonesian patients belonged to toxin A+/B+ ribotype SLO160 and toxin A-/B+ ribotype 017. With 42.9-73.3%, non-toxigenic strains were most abundant in Africa, but were also found in Indonesia at a rate of 18.2%. All isolates were susceptible to vancomycin and metronidazole. Mirroring the antibiotic use, however, moxifloxacin resistance was absent in African C. difficile isolates but present in Indonesian (24.2%) and German ones (65.5%). This study showed that CDI is a global health threat with geographically different prevalence rates which might reflect distinct use of antibiotics. Significant differences for distributions of ribotypes, toxin production, and antibiotic susceptibilities were observed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 86 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 13%
Researcher 10 12%
Lecturer 7 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 5%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 35 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 40 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 24 August 2018.
All research outputs
#15,016,514
of 23,099,576 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#14,039
of 25,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,509
of 330,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#445
of 748 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,099,576 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,279 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 330,798 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 748 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.