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 |
Executive Summary: Management of Adults With Hospital-acquired and Ventilator-associated Pneumonia: 2016 Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Infectious Diseases, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1093/cid/ciw504 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andre C. Kalil, Mark L. Metersky, Michael Klompas, John Muscedere, Daniel A. Sweeney, Lucy B. Palmer, Lena M. Napolitano, Naomi P. O'Grady, John G. Bartlett, Jordi Carratalà, Ali A. El Solh, Santiago Ewig, Paul D. Fey, Thomas M. File, Marcos I. Restrepo, Jason A. Roberts, Grant W. Waterer, Peggy Cruse, Shandra L. Knight, Jan L. Brozek |
| Abstract |
It is important to realize that guidelines cannot always account for individual variation among patients. They are not intended to supplant physician judgment with respect to particular patients or special clinical situations. IDSA considers adherence to these guidelines to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in the light of each patient's individual circumstances.These guidelines are intended for use by healthcare professionals who care for patients at risk for hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), including specialists in infectious diseases, pulmonary diseases, critical care, and surgeons, anesthesiologists, hospitalists, and any clinicians and healthcare providers caring for hospitalized patients with nosocomial pneumonia. The panel's recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of HAP and VAP are based upon evidence derived from topic-specific systematic literature reviews. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 20% |
| Sao Tome and Principe | 1 | 10% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 10% |
| Colombia | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 10% |
| Scientists | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 335 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 334 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 34 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 33 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 31 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 29 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 25 | 7% |
| Other | 86 | 26% |
| Unknown | 97 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 118 | 35% |
| Unspecified | 32 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 18 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 2% |
| Other | 36 | 11% |
| Unknown | 111 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 28 November 2023.
All research outputs
#1,590,999
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Infectious Diseases
#2,787
of 16,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,313
of 379,993 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Infectious Diseases
#34
of 147 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,950 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 379,993 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 147 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.