↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Virus-induced secondary bacterial infection: a concise review

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
Title
Virus-induced secondary bacterial infection: a concise review
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, August 2015
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s87789
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mohamed Hendaus, Fatima Jomha, Ahmed Alhammadi

Abstract

Respiratory diseases are a very common source of morbidity and mortality among children. Health care providers often face a dilemma when encountering a febrile infant or child with respiratory tract infection. The reason expressed by many clinicians is the trouble to confirm whether the fever is caused by a virus or a bacterium. The aim of this review is to update the current evidence on the virus-induced bacterial infection. We present several clinical as well in vitro studies that support the correlation between virus and secondary bacterial infections. In addition, we discuss the pathophysiology and prevention modes of the virus-bacterium coexistence. A search of the PubMed and MEDLINE databases was carried out for published articles covering bacterial infections associated with respiratory viruses. This review should provide clinicians with a comprehensive idea of the range of bacterial and viral coinfections or secondary infections that could present with viral respiratory illness.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Egypt 1 2%
Unknown 52 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 24%
Researcher 9 16%
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Postgraduate 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Other 14 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 42%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 16%
Unspecified 7 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 9%
Other 6 11%

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 26 August 2015.
All research outputs
#7,046,732
of 12,485,238 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#436
of 922 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,198
of 239,398 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#27
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,485,238 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 922 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 239,398 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 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.