↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Risk factors for recurrent hospital-acquired Clostridium difficile infection in a Japanese university hospital

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology, July 2015
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

googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
Title
Risk factors for recurrent hospital-acquired Clostridium difficile infection in a Japanese university hospital
Published in
Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology, July 2015
DOI 10.2147/ceg.s85007
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mayu Hikone, Yusuke Ainoda, Sayaka Tago, Takahiro Fujita, Yuji Hirai, Kaori Takeuchi, Kyoichi Totsuka

Abstract

Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is a highly prevalent hospital-associated infection. Although most patients respond well to discontinuation of antibiotics, 20%-30% of patients relapse. To initiate early therapeutic measures, the risk factors for recurrent CDI must be identified, although very few Japanese studies have used standard surveillance definitions to identify these risk factors. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients with health care facility-onset CDI between August 2011 and September 2013. Patients with diarrhea who were positive for Clostridium difficile (via an enzyme immunoassay) were defined as having CDI. Clinical data (eg, demographics, comorbidities, medication, laboratory results, and clinical outcomes) were evaluated, and multivariate analysis was used to identify risk factors that were associated with recurrent CDI. Seventy-six health care facility-onset CDI cases were identified, with an incidence rate of 0.8 cases per 10,000 patient-days. Fourteen cases (18.4%) were recurrent, with 13 patients having experienced a single recurrent episode and one patient having experienced three recurrent episodes. The 30-day and 90-day mortality rates were 7.9% and 14.5%, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that recurrent patients were more likely to have underlying malignant disease (odds ratio: 7.98; 95% confidence interval: 1.22-52.2; P=0.03) and a history of intensive care unit hospitalization (odds ratio: 49.9; 95% confidence interval: 1.01-2,470; P=0.049). Intensive care unit hospitalization and malignancy are risk factors for recurrent CDI. Patients with these factors should be carefully monitored for recurrence and provided with appropriate antimicrobial stewardship.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 12 28%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 8 19%
Unknown 11 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 5%
Other 8 19%
Unknown 13 30%
Attention Score in Context

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 15 July 2015.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology
#196
of 331 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,255
of 277,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology
#8
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 331 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 277,602 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.