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 |
Augmented renal clearance in critically ill patients: etiology, definition and implications for beta-lactam dose optimization
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Opinion in Pharmacology, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.coph.2015.06.002 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fekade Bruck Sime, Andrew A Udy, Jason A Roberts |
| Abstract |
The renal clearance of antibiotics may be elevated in some critically ill patients. This paper reviews this recently described phenomenon, referred to as augmented renal clearance (ARC). ARC is considered to be driven by pathophysiological elevation of glomerular filtration, and is defined as a creatinine clearance >130mL/min/173m(2). This in turn promotes very low antibiotic concentrations. This effect may lead to adverse clinical outcomes, particularly with beta-lactam antibiotics, as they require prolonged exposure for optimal antibacterial activity. The use of extended or continuous infusions is an effective strategy to improve exposure. However, because the effect of ARC is potentially quite variable, regular therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) may be necessary to ensure all patients achieve effective concentrations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 29% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 14% |
| Spain | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 57% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 29% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 104 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 16% |
| Other | 14 | 13% |
| Researcher | 14 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 22 | 21% |
| Unknown | 19 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 37 | 35% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 31 | 29% |
| Chemistry | 3 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 8% |
| Unknown | 23 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 13 March 2022.
All research outputs
#2,182,157
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Current Opinion in Pharmacology
#69
of 1,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,031
of 278,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Opinion in Pharmacology
#2
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,504 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. 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 278,342 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 24 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 91% of its contemporaries.