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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Impact of fluconazole versus posaconazole prophylaxis on the incidence of fungal infections in patients receiving induction chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Biomedical Journal , January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.4103/2319-4170.143491 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Camille Devanlay, Emmanuelle Tavernier-Tardy, Aurélie Bourmaud, Alexander Tuan Falk, Hélène Raberin, Sandrine Menguy, Denis Guyotat, Nicolas Magné, Jérôme Cornillon |
| Abstract |
Background: Invasive fungal infections (IFIs) remain one of the worrying complications in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) due to their incidence and high level of attributable mortality. In light of these risks, antifungal prophylaxis has always been debated. We conducted a single-center retrospective study of two prophylactic antifungal agents (fluconazole/posaconazole) in 91 consecutive patients receiving induction chemotherapy for AML between 2005 and 2009, in order to evaluate the impact on the incidence of IFI and on the mycological flora of the patients. Methods: In total, 39 patients received prophylactic fluconazole versus 52 who received posaconazole. The baseline characteristics of the two groups were comparable. Results: Overall, 17 patients developed an IFI, with no difference in frequency between the two groups. Utilization of empirical or pre-emptive therapy was similar irrespective of the type of prophylaxis used. Mycological examination of stools revealed an increase in non-albicans Candida colonization in the fluconazole group during hospitalization and the appearance of Saccharomyces cerevisiae colonization in patients receiving posaconazole. Conclusion: The present study does not distinguish between fluconazole and posaconazole as a primary effective prevention against fungal infections. More prospective studies and meta-analyses are warranted. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 6 | 27% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 18% |
| Researcher | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 5% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 7 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 55% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 5% |
| Engineering | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 31 October 2014.
All research outputs
#22,830,981
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Biomedical Journal
#727
of 827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#306,933
of 359,894 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biomedical Journal
#18
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 827 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 359,894 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.