↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis for transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy: a prospective cohort trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
Title
Evaluation of targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis for transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy: a prospective cohort trial
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12879-017-2470-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Teresa R. Zembower, Kelly M. Maxwell, Robert B. Nadler, John Cashy, Marc H. Scheetz, Chao Qi, Anthony J. Schaeffer

Abstract

We evaluated the effectiveness of targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis in transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy (TRUSP). A prospective, non-randomized cohort study was conducted. Rectal swab cultures plated on non-selective blood agar and on selective MacConkey agar supplemented with ciprofloxacin identified ciprofloxacin-susceptible and -resistant gram-negative bacteria (CS-GNB and CR-GNB). Patients with CS-GNB received ciprofloxacin while those with CR-GNB received directed prophylaxis. Infectious complications were defined clinically and microbiologically within 30 days after TRUSP. Data were derived at 7 and 30 days post procedure by questionnaires and electronic medical records. We hypothesized that there would be no difference in the infectious outcomes among the CS and CR groups. From November 1, 2012 to March 31, 2015, 510 men completed the study; 430 (84.3%) had CS-GNB and 80 (15.7%) had CR-GNB. 484 (94.9%) completed the study per protocol, while 26 (5.1%) had an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Of the 484, 475 (98.1%) had no infections, nine (1.9%) had infections, six of which (1.2%) were culture-proven (CP). The nine infections were as follows: five (1.0%) uncomplicated UTIs, one (0.2%) complicated UTI, and three (0.6%) urosepsis. One case of uncomplicated UTI and two cases of urosepsis were not CP, but were diagnosed clinically. ITT outcomes were similar. The infection rates were not statistically different between the CS-and CR-GNB patients (p-value = 0.314; 95% CI 0.8-3.3). The four patients with complicated UTIs or sepsis were hospitalized for a mean of 2.6 days and discharged without sequelae. Of the nine infections, three were antimicrobial prophylaxis failures (two ciprofloxacin and one amikacin); three were likely due to failure of the collection or processing of the rectal swab or increasing bacterial resistance between the time of swab collection and biopsy, and three developed clinical infections with no isolate recovered. Targeted antimicrobial prophylaxis follows the principles of antimicrobial stewardship and achieved a low rate of infectious complications with limited morbidity and no sequelae. This individualized method of prophylaxis may be widely applied. Further studies are needed to explore reasons for targeted prophylaxis failure and to determine comparative efficacy of non-ciprofloxacin-containing targeted prophylaxis regimens. ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT01659866 . Registered 9 July 2012. First patient enrolled 1 November 2012.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 94 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 12%
Other 10 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Student > Postgraduate 7 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 19 20%
Unknown 33 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 40%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 34 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 20 September 2019.
All research outputs
#7,430,652
of 22,979,862 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#2,540
of 7,715 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,074
of 317,348 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#64
of 173 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,979,862 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,715 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 317,348 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 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 173 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 63% of its contemporaries.