↓ Skip to main content

Optimizing dosing of antibiotics in critically ill patients

Overview of attention for article published in Current opinion in infectious diseases, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 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
Optimizing dosing of antibiotics in critically ill patients
Published in
Current opinion in infectious diseases, December 2015
DOI 10.1097/qco.0000000000000206
Pubmed ID
Authors

Suzanne L. Parker, Fekade B. Sime, Jason A. Roberts

Abstract

Recent studies suggest that contemporary antibiotic dosing is unlikely to achieve best outcomes for critically ill patients because of extensive pharmacokinetic variability and altered pharmacodynamics. Dose adaptation is considered quite challenging because of unpredictable dose-exposure relationships. Consequently, individualization of antibiotic dosing has been advocated. Herein, we describe recent developments in the optimization of antibiotic dosing in the critically ill. Conventional doses of many antibiotics frequently result in sub or supratherapeutic exposures in the critically ill. Clinical studies continue to illustrate that dose-exposure relationships are highly variable in severely ill patients. Dose optimization based on pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic principles can effectively improve antibiotic exposure. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) with adaptive feedback is likely to be the most robust approach to optimize dosing for individual patients. This more accurate approach to dosing is made possible with the user-friendly dosing software that is emerging. The scope of TDM is broadening from the traditional focus on prevention of toxicity, to include optimization of antibiotic exposure thereby improving patient outcomes. However, the evidence relating TDM practice with improved clinical outcome remains limited. Well designed, multicentre, randomized controlled studies are warranted.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 81 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 22%
Other 11 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Student > Master 8 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Other 14 17%
Unknown 16 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 42%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Chemistry 2 2%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 21 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 15 November 2015.
All research outputs
#8,187,031
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Current opinion in infectious diseases
#468
of 1,295 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,791
of 395,418 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current opinion in infectious diseases
#5
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,295 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 395,418 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.