↓ Skip to main content

Impact of Treatment Strategy on Outcomes in Patients with Candidemia and Other Forms of Invasive Candidiasis: A Patient-Level Quantitative Review of Randomized Trials

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Infectious Diseases, March 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
12 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
653 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
402 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
Impact of Treatment Strategy on Outcomes in Patients with Candidemia and Other Forms of Invasive Candidiasis: A Patient-Level Quantitative Review of Randomized Trials
Published in
Clinical Infectious Diseases, March 2012
DOI 10.1093/cid/cis021
Pubmed ID
Authors

David R. Andes, Nasia Safdar, John W. Baddley, Geoffrey Playford, Annette C. Reboli, John H. Rex, Jack D. Sobel, Peter G. Pappas, Bart Jan Kullberg

Abstract

Invasive candidiasis (IC) is an important healthcare-related infection, with increasing incidence and a crude mortality exceeding 50%. Numerous treatment options are available yet comparative studies have not identified optimal therapy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 402 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 3 <1%
United States 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 392 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 60 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 55 14%
Student > Master 42 10%
Other 40 10%
Student > Postgraduate 28 7%
Other 89 22%
Unknown 88 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 188 47%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 23 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 5%
Engineering 9 2%
Other 32 8%
Unknown 99 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 08 February 2024.
All research outputs
#1,907,831
of 25,349,102 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Infectious Diseases
#3,336
of 16,818 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,442
of 162,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Infectious Diseases
#32
of 199 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,349,102 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,818 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 162,113 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 199 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.