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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Impact of piperacillin-tazobactam shortage on meropenem use: implications for antimicrobial stewardship programs
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.bjid.2016.08.001 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Katie E. Barber, Allison M. Bell, S. Travis King, Jason J. Parham, Kayla R. Stover |
| Abstract |
Drug shortages pose a clear detriment to antimicrobial stewardship (AS) efforts. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of a piperacillin-tazobactam shortage on meropenem use, related costs, and associated changes in AS activity. A quasi-experimental quality improvement review compared adult patients receiving meropenem ≥72h three months pre-shortage and three months during the shortage. 320 patients were included (pre-shortage: 103; shortage: 217). Baseline characteristics were similar, but the length of stay was slightly longer in pre-shortage [19 (11-32) days] versus shortage [16 (11-32) days] (p=0.094). In pre-shortage and shortage, median days of therapy and estimated meropenem cost were 7 (5-11) and 7 (5-10) and $309.93 ($173.60-$507.03) and $255.30 ($204.24-$424.31), respectively (p=0.411 and p=0.050). Frequency of ID consultation was similar (16.8% in pre- and 25.3% in shortage, p=0.091). AS interventions increased during the shortage period (99 in pre-shortage and 205 in shortage). De-escalation occurred in 19.4% versus 32.7% of the patients in pre-shortage and shortage (p=0.014). The piperacillin-tazobactam shortage was associated with a 111% increase in meropenem prescriptions despite active AS, but was not associated with changes in mortality, length of therapy, or meropenem costs. AS should be aware that shortages may require proactive countermeasures to avoid inappropriate antimicrobial use during shortage periods. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 60 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 12% |
| Researcher | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 15% |
| Unknown | 21 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 25% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 12 | 20% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Unknown | 21 | 35% |
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 31 July 2017.
All research outputs
#22,759,802
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases
#645
of 809 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#306,464
of 346,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases
#22
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 809 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 346,175 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.