↓ Skip to main content

Pediatric Urinary Tract Infection: Does the Evidence Support Aggressively Pursuing the Diagnosis?

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Emergency Medicine, January 2013
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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
22 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
79 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.
Article details
Title
Pediatric Urinary Tract Infection: Does the Evidence Support Aggressively Pursuing the Diagnosis?
Published in
Annals of Emergency Medicine, January 2013
DOI 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.10.034
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The epidemiology of pediatric fever has changed considerably during the past 2 decades with the development of vaccines against the most common bacterial pathogens causing bacteremia and meningitis. The decreasing incidence of these 2 conditions among vaccinated children has led to an emphasis on urinary tract infection as a remaining source of potentially hidden infections in febrile children. Emerging literature, however, has led to questions about both the degree and nature of the danger posed by urinary tract infection in nonverbal children, whereas the aggressive pursuit of the diagnosis consumes resources and leads to patient discomfort, medical risks, and potential overdiagnosis. We review both early and emerging literature to examine the utility and efficacy of early identification and treatment of urinary tract infection in children younger than 24 months. We conclude that in well children of this age, it may be reasonable to withhold or delay testing for urinary tract infection if signs of other sources are apparent or if the fever has been present for fewer than 4 to 5 days.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Portugal 1 1%
Macao 1 1%
Korea, Republic of 1 1%
Unknown 76 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 14 18%
Student > Bachelor 12 15%
Student > Postgraduate 12 15%
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Master 9 11%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 9 11%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 70%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Arts and Humanities 1 1%
Mathematics 1 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 15 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 21 March 2021.
All research outputs
#1,620,935
of 31,786,701 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Emergency Medicine
#844
of 8,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,467
of 329,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Emergency Medicine
#8
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 31,786,701 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,007 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 329,122 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 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.