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 |
How do we use therapeutic drug monitoring to improve outcomes from severe infections in critically ill patients?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Infectious Diseases, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2334-14-288 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gloria Wong, Fekade Bruck Sime, Jeffrey Lipman, Jason A Roberts |
| Abstract |
High mortality and morbidity rates associated with severe infections in the critically ill continue to be a significant issue for the healthcare system. In view of the diverse and unique pharmacokinetic profile of drugs in this patient population, there is increasing use of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) in attempt to optimize the exposure of antibiotics, improve clinical outcome and minimize the emergence of antibiotic resistance. Despite this, a beneficial clinical outcome for TDM of antibiotics has only been demonstrated for aminoglycosides in a general hospital patient population. Clinical outcome studies for other antibiotics remain elusive. Further, there is significant variability among institutions with respect to the practice of TDM including the selection of patients, sampling time for concentration monitoring, methodologies of antibiotic assay, selection of PK/PD targets as well as dose optimisation strategies. The aim of this paper is to review the available evidence relating to practices of antibiotic TDM, and describe how TDM can be applied to potentially improve outcomes from severe infections in the critically ill. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 3 | 21% |
| United States | 2 | 14% |
| Canada | 2 | 14% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 7% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 5 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 79% |
| Scientists | 2 | 14% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 192 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 2% |
| Colombia | 2 | 1% |
| Zimbabwe | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 186 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 36 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 33 | 17% |
| Other | 24 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 10% |
| Researcher | 18 | 9% |
| Other | 35 | 18% |
| Unknown | 26 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 65 | 34% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 51 | 27% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 5% |
| Chemistry | 9 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 17 | 9% |
| Unknown | 35 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 10 May 2015.
All research outputs
#2,286,780
of 24,396,012 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#656
of 8,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,870
of 371,532 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#13
of 194 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,396,012 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,159 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 371,532 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 194 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 93% of its contemporaries.