↓ Skip to main content

Antimicrobial therapy for chronic bacterial prostatitis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Antimicrobial therapy for chronic bacterial prostatitis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009071.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gianpaolo Perletti, Emanuela Marras, Florian ME Wagenlehner, Vittorio Magri

Abstract

Chronic bacterial prostatitis (CBP) is frequently diagnosed in men of fertile age, and is characterized by a disabling array of symptoms, including pain in the pelvic area (for example, perineum, testicles), voiding symptoms (increased frequency and urgency, also at night; pain or discomfort at micturition), and sexual dysfunction. Cure of CBP can be attempted by long-term therapy with antibacterial agents, but relapses are frequent. Few antibacterial agents are able to distribute to the prostatic tissue and achieve sufficient concentrations at the site of infection. These agents include fluoroquinolones, macrolides, tetracyclines and trimethoprim. After the introduction of fluoroquinolones into clinical practice, a number of studies have been performed to optimize the antimicrobial treatment of CBP, and to improve eradication rates and symptom relief.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 2%
South Africa 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 85 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 23%
Student > Master 16 18%
Unspecified 11 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 12%
Other 9 10%
Other 22 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 54%
Unspecified 15 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Psychology 4 4%
Other 11 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 12 August 2013.
All research outputs
#3,313,202
of 12,614,978 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,308
of 10,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,569
of 153,841 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#68
of 133 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,614,978 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,378 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 153,841 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 133 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.