↓ Skip to main content

How best to deal with endocarditis

Overview of attention for article published in Current Infectious Disease Reports, February 2006
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
How best to deal with endocarditis
Published in
Current Infectious Disease Reports, February 2006
DOI 10.1007/s11908-006-0030-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew Mark Morris

Abstract

Infective endocarditis (IE) is an infection of the endocardial surface, usually involving heart valves and/or prosthetic intracardiac devices. Although much emphasis has been placed on antimicrobial prophylaxis prior to dental work to prevent IE, the evidence supporting this approach and its effectiveness are lacking. Resulting in valvular dysfunction, continuous bacteremia with constitutional features, embolic phenomena, and immune-mediated disease, diagnosis of IE requires careful history taking, physical examination, and utilization of echocardiography, blood work, and microbiologic tests. IE is uniformly fatal without effective therapy. Treatment for most cases requires prolonged courses of bactericidal antimicrobials in doses sufficient to penetrate vegetations and kill the microorganisms. Drug-resistant organisms, prosthetic intracardiac devices, comorbid illness, and valvular dysfunction often complicate therapy, necessitating a look towards adjunctive cardiac surgery. Better data (in the form of population-based surveillance and clinical trials) is beginning to impact the management of infective endocarditis.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 30%
Librarian 3 11%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 7%
Researcher 2 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Other 8 30%
Unknown 2 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 48%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 11%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 6 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 16 May 2011.
All research outputs
#8,515,843
of 25,380,192 outputs
Outputs from Current Infectious Disease Reports
#194
of 527 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,701
of 167,611 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Infectious Disease Reports
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,380,192 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 527 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 167,611 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.