↓ Skip to main content

Fluoroquinolone Restriction as an Effective Antimicrobial Stewardship Intervention

Overview of attention for article published in Current Infectious Disease Reports, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#24 of 505)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
43 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
Fluoroquinolone Restriction as an Effective Antimicrobial Stewardship Intervention
Published in
Current Infectious Disease Reports, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11908-018-0615-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kimberly C. Claeys, Teri L. Hopkins, Ana D. Vega, Emily L. Heil

Abstract

Fluoroquinolones are a commonly prescribed antibiotic class that has come under scrutiny in recent years due to mounting evidence of association between adverse drug events, C. difficile infection and isolation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Inpatient antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programs have a toolbox of potential interventions to curb inappropriate antibiotic use, prevent antibiotic-associated adverse drug events, and avoid unnecessary costs of care. Fluoroquinolone restriction policies in the acute care setting have demonstrated beneficial effects, including decreased rates of C. difficile infection and ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae. However, a simple blanket restriction policy may "squeeze the antibiotic balloon" and will likely be insufficient if not implemented in conjunction with other AMS interventions. There is a growing body of evidence to support formulary restriction of fluoroquinolones in the acute care setting to decrease rates of C. difficile infection and development of ESBL-producing organisms. Data on how to best implement these restrictions or how to implement outside of acute care settings is limited.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 23%
Other 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 2 7%
Researcher 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 7 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 33%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 7%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 7 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 24 June 2018.
All research outputs
#1,398,829
of 24,353,295 outputs
Outputs from Current Infectious Disease Reports
#24
of 505 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,545
of 335,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Infectious Disease Reports
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,353,295 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 505 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 335,078 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.