↓ Skip to main content

Antimicrobial Resistance in Gram-Negative Rods Causing Bacteremia in Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant Recipients: Intercontinental Prospective Study of the Infectious Diseases Working Party of the…

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Infectious Diseases, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
34 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
184 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
204 Mendeley
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.
Title
Antimicrobial Resistance in Gram-Negative Rods Causing Bacteremia in Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant Recipients: Intercontinental Prospective Study of the Infectious Diseases Working Party of the European Bone Marrow Transplantation Group.
Published in
Clinical Infectious Diseases, July 2017
DOI 10.1093/cid/cix646
Pubmed ID
Authors

Diana Averbuch, Gloria Tridello, Jennifer Hoek, Malgorzata Mikulska, Hamdi Akan, Lucrecia Yanez San Segundo, Thomas Pabst, Tülay Özçelik, Galina Klyasova, Irene Donnini, Depei Wu, Zafer Gülbas, Tsila Zuckerman, Aida Botelho de Sousa, Yves Beguin, Aliénor Xhaard, Emmanuel Bachy, Per Ljungman, Rafael de la Camara, Jelena Rascon, Isabel Ruiz Camps, Antonin Vitek, Francesca Patriarca, Laura Cudillo, Radovan Vrhovac, Peter J Shaw, Tom Wolfs, Tracey O'Brien, Batia Avni, Gerda Silling, Firas Al Sabty, Stelios Graphakos, Marja Sankelo, Henrik Sengeloev, Srinivas Pillai, Susanne Matthes, Frederiki Melanthiou, Simona Iacobelli, Jan Styczynski, Dan Engelhard, Simone Cesaro

Abstract

This intercontinental study aimed to study Gram-negative rods (GNR) resistance in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). GNR bacteremias occurring during six months post-HSCT (February/2014-May/2015) were prospectively collected, and analysed for rates and risk factors for resistance to fluoroquinolones, non-carbapenem anti-Pseudomonas beta-lactams (non-carbapenems), carbapenems and multidrug-resistance (MDR). Sixty-five HSCT centers from 25 countries (Europe, Australia, Asia) reported data on 655 GNR episodes/704 pathogens in 591 patients (Enterobacteriaceae, 73%; non-fermentatives, 24% and 3% others). Half GNR were fluoroquinolone- and non-carbapenems-resistant; 18.5% carbapenem-resistant; 35.2% MDR. The total resistance rates were higher in allo-HSCT vs. auto-HSCT patients (p<0.001); but similar in community-acquired infections. Non-carbapenems-resistance and MDR were higher in auto-HSCT patients in centers providing vs. non-providing fluoroquinolone prophylaxis (p<0.01). Resistance rates were higher in southeast vs. north-west Europe; similar in children and adults; excluding higher fluoroquinolone- and beta-lactam beta-lactamase inhibitors-resistance rates in allo-HSCT adults. Non-Klebsiella Enterobacteriaceae were rarely carbapenem-resistant. Multivariable analysis revealed resistance risk factors in allo-HSCT patients: fluoroquinolone-resistance: adult, prolonged neutropenia, breakthrough on fluoroquinolones; non-carbapenems-resistance: hospital-acquired infection, breakthrough on non-carbapenems or other antibiotics (excluding fluoroquinolones, non-carbapenems, carbapenems), donor type; carbapenem-resistance: breakthrough on carbapenem, longer hospitalization, intensive care unit, previous other antibiotic therapy; MDR: longer hospitalization, breakthrough on beta-lactam beta-lactamase inhibitors and carbapenems. Inappropriate empirical therapy and mortality were significantly more common in infections caused by resistant bacteria. Our data question the recommendation for fluoroquinolone prophylaxis and call for reassessment of local empirical antibiotic protocols. Knowledge of pathogen-specific resistances enable early appropriate empirical therapy. Monitoring of resistance is crucial.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 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 204 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 204 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 12%
Other 22 11%
Student > Postgraduate 20 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 8%
Student > Master 16 8%
Other 49 24%
Unknown 56 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 84 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 2%
Other 19 9%
Unknown 73 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 04 January 2024.
All research outputs
#1,751,769
of 25,223,158 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Infectious Diseases
#3,052
of 16,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,350
of 322,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Infectious Diseases
#45
of 203 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,223,158 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 16,751 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 322,660 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 203 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.