| Title |
Clinical outcomes of extended versus intermittent administration of piperacillin/tazobactam for the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia: a randomized controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10096-016-2819-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
H. Bao, Y. Lv, D. Wang, J. Xue, Z. Yan |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study was to assess the pharmacokinetic (PK) characteristics, clinical efficiency, and pharmacoeconomic parameters of piperacillin/tazobactam administered by extended infusion (EI) or intermittent infusion (II) in the treatment of hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) in critically ill patients with low illness severity in China. Fifty patients completed the study, with 25 patients receiving 4/0.5 g piperacillin/tazobactam over 30 min as the II group and 25 patients receiving 4/0.5 g piperacillin/tazobactam over 3 h every 6 h as the EI group. Drug assay was performed using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). The percentage of the dosing interval for which the free piperacillin concentration (%fT) exceeds the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) was calculated. The patients' therapy cost, clinical efficiency, and adverse effects were also recorded. %fT>MIC was about 100, 98.73, and 93.04 % in the EI arm versus 81.48, 53.29, and 42.15 % in the II arm, respectively, when the microorganism responsible for HAP had an MIC of 4, 8, and 16 mg/L. The therapy cost in the EI group was lower than that of the II group ($1351.72 ± 120.39 vs. $1782.04 ± 164.51, p = 0.001). However, the clinical success rate, clinical failure rate, and drug-related adverse events did not significantly differ between groups. EI treatment with piperacillin/tazobactam was a cost-effective approach to the management of HAP, being equally clinically effective to conventional II. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 6 | 46% |
| France | 1 | 8% |
| Germany | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 5 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 77% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 23% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 104 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 15 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 21 | 20% |
| Unknown | 31 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 30% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 15 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 12 | 11% |
| Unknown | 34 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 18 August 2022.
All research outputs
#3,021,461
of 23,509,253 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#223
of 2,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,619
of 315,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#4
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,253 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,822 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 315,555 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.