↓ Skip to main content

The use and risks of antibiotics in critically ill patients

Overview of attention for article published in Expert Opinion on Drug Safety, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
The use and risks of antibiotics in critically ill patients
Published in
Expert Opinion on Drug Safety, April 2016
DOI 10.1517/14740338.2016.1164690
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kerina J. Denny, Menino O. Cotta, Suzanne L. Parker, Jason A. Roberts, Jeffrey Lipman

Abstract

Introduction The altered pathophysiology in critically ill patients presents a unique challenge in both the diagnosis of infection and the appropriate prescription of antibiotics. In this context, the importance of effective and timely treatment needs to be weighed against the individual and community harms associated with antibiotic collateral damage and antibiotic resistance. Areas Covered We evaluate the principles of antibiotic use in critically ill patients, including dose optimisation, use of combination antibiotic therapy, therapeutic drug monitoring, appropriate antibiotic therapy duration, de-escalation, and utilisation of sepsis biomarkers. We also describe the potential risks associated with antibiotic therapy including antibiotic resistance, delayed treatment, treatment failure, and collateral damage. Expert Opinion Prescribing teams must be aware of the impact of critical illness on their patients and tailor antibiotic therapy appropriately to prevent the significant harms associated with suboptimal antibiotic administration.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 15%
Researcher 5 11%
Other 4 9%
Professor 2 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 20 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 34%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 21 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 14 March 2016.
All research outputs
#6,383,714
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from Expert Opinion on Drug Safety
#270
of 1,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,514
of 300,998 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Expert Opinion on Drug Safety
#3
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,160 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 300,998 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 33 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 90% of its contemporaries.