↓ Skip to main content

Randomized controlled trial of piperacillin-tazobactam, cefepime and ertapenem for the treatment of urinary tract infection caused by extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, June 2017
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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
76 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
169 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
Randomized controlled trial of piperacillin-tazobactam, cefepime and ertapenem for the treatment of urinary tract infection caused by extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12879-017-2502-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yu Bin Seo, Jacob Lee, Young Keun Kim, Seung Soon Lee, Jeong-a Lee, Hyo Youl Kim, Young Uh, Han-Sung Kim, Wonkeun Song

Abstract

Due to limited therapeutic options, the spread of extended-spectrum beta-lactamases (ESBLs) have become a major public health concern. We conducted a prospective, randomized, open-label comparison of the therapeutic efficacy of piperacillin-tazobactam (PTZ), cefepime, and ertapenem in febrile nosocomial urinary tract infection with ESBL-producing Escherichia coli (ESBL-EC). This study was conducted at three university hospitals between January 2013 and August 2015. Hospitalized adult patients presenting with fever were screened for healthcare-associated urinary tract infection (HA-UTI). When ESBL-EC was solely detected and susceptible to a randomized antibiotic in vitro, the case was included in the final analysis. Participants were treated for 10-14 days with PTZ, cefepime, or ertapenem. A total of 66 participants were evenly assigned to the PTZ and ertapenem treatment groups. After the recruitment of six participants, assignment to the cefepime treatment group was stopped because of an unexpectedly high treatment failure rate. The baseline characteristics of these participants did not differ from participants in other treatment groups. The clinical and microbiological response to PTZ treatment was estimated to be 94% and was similar to the response to ertapenem treatment. The efficacy of cefepime was 33.3%. In the cefepime group, age, Charlson comorbidity index, genotype, and minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) did not significantly affect the success of treatment. Similarly, genotype seemed to be irrelevant with respect to clinical outcome in the PTZ group. Expired cases tended to involve septic shock with a high Charlson comorbidity index and high MIC. Results from this study suggest that PTZ is effective in the treatment of urinary tract infection caused by ESBL-EC when the in vitro test indicates susceptibility. In addition, cefepime should not be used as an alternative treatment for urinary tract infection caused by ESBL-EC. The trial was registered with the Clinical Research Information Service of Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (KCT0001895).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 169 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 169 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 12%
Other 19 11%
Student > Bachelor 18 11%
Researcher 14 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 6%
Other 29 17%
Unknown 58 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 62 37%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 15 9%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 2%
Other 14 8%
Unknown 62 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 March 2022.
All research outputs
#1,701,371
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#427
of 8,693 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,352
of 332,545 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#12
of 176 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,693 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 332,545 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 176 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.