| Title |
The “Choosing Wisely” initiative in infectious diseases
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Infection, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s15010-017-0997-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Clara Lehmann, Reinhard Berner, Johannes R. Bogner, Oliver A. Cornely, Katja de With, Susanne Herold, Winfried V. Kern, Sebastian Lemmen, Mathias W. Pletz, Bernhard Ruf, Bernd Salzberger, Hans Jürgen Stellbrink, Norbert Suttorp, Andrew J. Ullmann, Gerd Fätkenheuer, Norma Jung |
| Abstract |
"Choosing Wisely" is a growing international campaign aiming at practice changes to improve patient health and safety by both, conduct of essential and avoidance of unnecessary diagnostic, preventive and therapeutic procedures. The goal is to create an easily recognizable and distributable list ("Choosing Wisely items") that addresses common over- and underuse in the management of infectious diseases. The German Society of Infectious Diseases (DGI) participates in the campaign "Klug Entscheiden" by the German Society of Internal Medicine. Committee members of the (DGI) listed potential 'Choosing Wisely items'. Topics were subjected to systematic evidence review and top ten items were selected for appropriateness. Five positive and negative recommendations were approved via individual member vote. The final recommendations are: (1) Imperatively start antimicrobial treatment and remove the focus in Staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infection. (2) Critically ill patients with signs of infection need early appropriate antibiotic therapy. (3) Annual influenza vaccination should be given to individuals with age >60 years, patients with specific co-morbidities and to contact persons who may spread influenza to others. (4) All children should receive measles vaccine. (5) Prefer oral formulations of highly bioavailable antimicrobials whenever possible. (6) Avoid prescribing antibiotics for uncomplicated upper respiratory tract infections. (7) Do not treat asymptomatic bacteriuria with antibiotics. (8) Do not treat Candida detected in respiratory or gastrointestinal tract specimens. (9) Do not prolong prophylactic administration of antibiotics in patients after they have left the operating room. (10) Do not treat an elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) or procalcitonin with antibiotics for patients without signs of infection. Physicians will reduce potential harm to patients and increase the value of health care when implementing these recommendations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 46 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 Kingdom | 9 | 20% |
| Brazil | 3 | 7% |
| United States | 3 | 7% |
| Saudi Arabia | 2 | 4% |
| Mexico | 2 | 4% |
| Ireland | 2 | 4% |
| Japan | 1 | 2% |
| South Africa | 1 | 2% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 17 | 37% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 27 | 59% |
| Scientists | 10 | 22% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 8 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 88 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 16 | 18% |
| Researcher | 11 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 10% |
| Other | 24 | 27% |
| Unknown | 9 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 45 | 51% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 6% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 3 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 12 | 13% |
| Unknown | 15 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 03 February 2022.
All research outputs
#1,118,454
of 25,443,857 outputs
Outputs from Infection
#55
of 1,596 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,548
of 322,670 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Infection
#3
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,443,857 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,596 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 322,670 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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 90% of its contemporaries.