↓ Skip to main content

Standard versus biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing to guide antibiotic therapy in cystic fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 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
Standard versus biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing to guide antibiotic therapy in cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009528.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Waters V, Ratjen F

Abstract

The antibiotics used to treat pulmonary infections in people with cystic fibrosis are typically chosen based on the results of antimicrobial susceptibility testing performed on bacteria traditionally grown in a planktonic mode (grown in a liquid). However, there is considerable evidence to suggest that Pseudomonas aeruginosa actually grows in a biofilm (or slime layer) in the airways of cystic fibrosis patients with chronic pulmonary infections. Therefore, choosing antibiotics based on biofilm rather than conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing could potentially improve response to treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in people with cystic fibrosis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ireland 1 2%
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 40 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 26%
Student > Bachelor 6 14%
Student > Master 5 12%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 9 21%
Unknown 6 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 21%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 7 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 16 January 2013.
All research outputs
#20,117,881
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#12,112
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,364
of 192,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#229
of 245 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 192,979 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 245 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.