↓ Skip to main content

Appropriate antibiotic use for patients with complicated urinary tract infections in 38 Dutch Hospital Departments: a retrospective study of variation and determinants

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
Title
Appropriate antibiotic use for patients with complicated urinary tract infections in 38 Dutch Hospital Departments: a retrospective study of variation and determinants
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12879-015-1257-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

V. Spoorenberg, S. E. Geerlings, R. B. Geskus, T. M. de Reijke, J. M. Prins, M. E. J. L. Hulscher

Abstract

Appropriate antibiotic use in patients with complicated urinary tract infections can be measured by a valid set of nine quality indicators (QIs). We evaluated the performance of these QIs in a national setting and investigated which determinants influenced appropriate antibiotic use. For the latter, we distinguished patient, department and hospital characteristics, including organizational interventions aimed at improving the quality of antibiotic use (antibiotic stewardship elements). A retrospective, observational multicentre study included 1964 patients (58 % male sex) with a complicated urinary tract infection treated at Internal Medicine and Urology departments of 19 Dutch university and non-university hospitals. Data of 50 patients per department were extracted from medical charts. QI performance scores were calculated using previously constructed algorithms. Department and hospital characteristics were collected using questionnaires filled in by an internal medicine physician and an urologist. Regression analysis was performed to identify determinants of QI performance. Clustering at department and hospital level was taken into account through inclusion of random effects in a multi-level model. Median QI performance of departments varied between 31 % ('Treat urinary tract infection in men according to local guideline') and 77 % ('Perform urine culture'). The patient characteristics non-febrile urinary tract infection, female sex and presence of a urinary catheter were negatively associated with performance on many QIs. The presence of an infectious diseases physician and an antibiotic formulary were positively associated with 'Prescribe empirical therapy according to guideline'. No other department or hospital characteristics, including stewardship elements, were consistently associated with better QI performance. A large inter-department variation was demonstrated in the appropriateness of antibiotic use. In particular certain patient characteristics (more than department or hospital characteristics) influenced the quality of antibiotic use. Some, but not all antibiotic stewardship elements did translate into better QI performance.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 14%
Other 11 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Researcher 6 7%
Other 19 22%
Unknown 22 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 27%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 24 27%
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 07 April 2016.
All research outputs
#12,744,347
of 22,832,057 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#2,903
of 7,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,685
of 284,824 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#61
of 164 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,832,057 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 7,678 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 284,824 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 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 164 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 62% of its contemporaries.