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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Pharmacokinetics of Piperacillin in Critically Ill Australian Indigenous Patients with Severe Sepsis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1128/aac.01657-16 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Danny Tsai, Penelope Stewart, Rajendra Goud, Stephen Gourley, Saliya Hewagama, Sushena Krishnaswamy, Steven C. Wallis, Jeffrey Lipman, Jason A. Roberts |
| Abstract |
There are no available pharmacokinetic data to guide piperacillin dosing in critically ill Australian Indigenous patients despite numerous reported physiological differences. This study aimed to describe the population pharmacokinetics of piperacillin in critically ill Australian Indigenous patients with severe sepsis. A population pharmacokinetic study of Indigenous patients with severe sepsis was conducted in a remote hospital intensive care unit. Plasma samples were collected over two dosing intervals and assayed by validated chromatography. Population pharmacokinetic modelling was conducted using Pmetrics®. Nine patients were recruited and a two compartment model adequately described the data. Piperacillin clearance (CL), volume of distribution of the central compartment (Vc), distribution rate constant from central to peripheral compartment and from peripheral to central compartment were 5.6 ± 3.2 L/h, 14.5 ± 6.6 L, 1.5 ± 0.4 h(-1) and 1.8 ± 0.9 h(-1) respectively, where CL and Vc were found to be described by creatinine clearance (CrCL) and total body weight respectively. In this patient population, piperacillin demonstrated high interindividual pharmacokinetic variability. CrCL were found to be the most important determinant of piperacillin pharmacokinetics. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 12% |
| Researcher | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 9 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 31% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 19% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 10 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 21 November 2016.
All research outputs
#4,837,286
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
#4,050
of 15,580 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,658
of 415,191 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
#151
of 216 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,580 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 415,191 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 216 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.