↓ Skip to main content

In vitro potency of amikacin and comparators against E. coli,K. pneumoniae and P. aeruginosa respiratory and blood isolates

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
Title
In vitro potency of amikacin and comparators against E. coli,K. pneumoniae and P. aeruginosa respiratory and blood isolates
Published in
Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12941-016-0155-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christina A. Sutherland, Jamie E. Verastegui, David P. Nicolau

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to define the potency of amikacin and comparator agents against a collection of blood and respiratory nosocomial isolates implicated in ICU based pulmonary infections gathered from US hospitals. Minimum inhibitory concentrations of amikacin, aztreonam, cefepime, ceftazidime, ceftolozane/tazobactam, ceftriaxone, ciprofloxacin, imipenem, meropenem, piperacillin/tazobactam and tobramycin were tested against 2460 Gram-negative isolates. Amikacin had 96 % susceptibility against the combined E. coli and K. pneumoniae isolates and 95 % susceptibility against P. aeruginosa. Ninety-six percent of all of isolates tested were susceptible (i.e., MICs ≤16 mg/L) to amikacin by current laboratory standards which demonstrates a high level of activity to combat infections caused by these organisms including ESBL, MDR, β-lactam and fluoroquinolone resistant strains. Moreover, 99 % of all organisms had amikacin MICs ≤64 mg/L. Overall, these data highlight the continued potency of amikacin and suggest that the achievable lung concentrations of approximately 5000 mg/L with the administration of the amikacin by inhalation (Amikacin Inhale, BAY41-6551) will exceed the MICs typically observed for P. aeruginosa, E. coli and K. pneumoniae in the hospital setting.

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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 19%
Student > Bachelor 9 17%
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Lecturer 3 6%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 16 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 20%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 7%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 18 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 23 September 2016.
All research outputs
#16,046,765
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials
#313
of 678 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#215,977
of 368,608 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials
#12
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 678 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 368,608 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.