↓ Skip to main content

Impact of Gram stain results on initial treatment selection in patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia: a retrospective analysis of two treatment algorithms

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 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
Impact of Gram stain results on initial treatment selection in patients with ventilator-associated pneumonia: a retrospective analysis of two treatment algorithms
Published in
Critical Care, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13054-017-1747-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jumpei Yoshimura, Takahiro Kinoshita, Kazuma Yamakawa, Asako Matsushima, Naoki Nakamoto, Toshimitsu Hamasaki, Satoshi Fujimi

Abstract

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a common and serious problem in intensive care units (ICUs). Several studies have suggested that the Gram stain of endotracheal aspirates is a useful method for accurately diagnosing VAP. However, the usefulness of the Gram stain in predicting which microorganisms cause VAP has not been established. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether a Gram stain of endotracheal aspirates could be used to determine appropriate initial antimicrobial therapy for VAP. Data on consecutive episodes of microbiologically confirmed VAP were collected from February 2013 to February 2016 in the ICU of a tertiary care hospital in Japan. We constructed two hypothetical empirical antimicrobial treatment algorithms for VAP: a guidelines-based algorithm (GLBA) based on the recommendations of the American Thoracic Society-Infectious Diseases Society of America (ATS-IDSA) guidelines and a Gram stain-based algorithm (GSBA) which limited the choice of initial antimicrobials according to the results of bedside Gram stains. The GLBA and the GSBA were retrospectively reviewed for each VAP episode. The initial coverage rates and the selection of broad-spectrum antimicrobial agents were compared between the two algorithms. During the study period, 219 suspected VAP episodes were observed and 131 episodes were assessed for analysis. Appropriate antimicrobial coverage rates were not significantly different between the two algorithms (GLBA 95.4% versus GSBA 92.4%; p = 0.134). The number of episodes for which antimethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus agents were selected as an initial treatment was larger in the GLBA than in the GSBA (71.0% versus 31.3%; p < 0.001), as were the number of episodes for which antipseudomonal agents were recommended as an initial treatment (70.2% versus 51.9%; p < 0.001). Antimicrobial treatment based on Gram stain results may restrict the administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobial agents without increasing the risk of treatment failure. UMIN-CTR, UMIN000026457 . Registered 8 March 2017 (retrospectively registered).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 84 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 14 17%
Researcher 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Student > Master 6 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 6%
Other 15 18%
Unknown 25 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 30 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 22 August 2020.
All research outputs
#4,229,987
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,018
of 6,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,164
of 329,774 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#69
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,555 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 329,774 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.