↓ Skip to main content

Comparative in vitro susceptibility of Burkholderia pseudomallei to doripenem, ertapenem, tigecycline and moxifloxacin

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, April 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Comparative in vitro susceptibility of Burkholderia pseudomallei to doripenem, ertapenem, tigecycline and moxifloxacin
Published in
International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, April 2011
DOI 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2011.02.001
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patrick Harris, Cathy Engler, Robert Norton

Abstract

Burkholderia pseudomallei, the causative agent of melioidosis, continues to present therapeutic challenges in endemic areas. A number of clinical issues have prompted consideration of alternative antimicrobial therapies. These include stability in 24-h infusion pumps, broad-spectrum coverage in the empirical treatment of community-acquired pneumonia, cost, the need for effective oral agents and rare reports of emerging resistance. This study aimed to examine the in vitro susceptibility of B. pseudomallei to four new antimicrobial agents, namely moxifloxacin, tigecycline, ertapenem and doripenem. A total of 100 clinical isolates were tested by Etest and disk diffusion. As there are no interpretative standards for these antimicrobials, MIC(90) values (minimum inhibitory concentrations for 90% of the isolates) were compared with those for meropenem. MIC values for each agent were correlated with zone of inhibition diameters. MICs for doripenem were broadly similar to those for meropenem, with a MIC(90) of 1.5 μg/mL (range 0.38-4 μg/mL). There was good correlation (r=-0.71; P<0.001) between the MIC and disk diffusion for doripenem. Ertapenem, tigecycline and moxifloxacin had limited in vitro activity in this study, although no interpretative criteria exist for these agents. Further in vitro, animal and clinical studies are suggested to validate the efficacy of doripenem in the management of melioidosis.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 6%
Malaysia 1 3%
Thailand 1 3%
Unknown 32 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 22%
Researcher 7 19%
Student > Master 5 14%
Other 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 5 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 6%
Chemistry 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 7 19%
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 10 January 2017.
All research outputs
#8,534,528
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents
#1,151
of 3,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,782
of 120,534 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents
#14
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 3,028 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.3. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 120,534 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.