↓ Skip to main content

How to approach and treat VAP in ICU patients

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, April 2014
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 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
How to approach and treat VAP in ICU patients
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, April 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2334-14-211
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bárbara Borgatta, Jordi Rello

Abstract

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is one of the most frequent clinical problems in ICU with an elevated morbidity and costs associated with it, in addition to prolonged MV, ICU-length of stay (LOS) and hospital-length of stay. Current challenges in VAP management include the absence of a diagnostic gold standard; the lack of evidence regarding contamination vs. airway colonization vs. infection; and the increasing antibiotic resistance. We performed a Pubmed search of articles addressing the management of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Immunocompromised patients, children and VAP due to multi-drug resistant pathogens were excluded from the analysis. When facing a patient with VAP, it's important to address a few key questions for the patient's optimal management: when should antibiotics be started?; what microorganisms should be covered?; is there risk for multirresistant microorganisms?; how to choose the initial agent?; how microbiological tests determine antibiotic changes?; and lastly, which dose and for how long?. It's important not to delay adequate treatment, since outcomes improve when empirical treatment is early and effective. We recommend short course of broad-spectrum antibiotics, followed by de-escalation when susceptibilities are available. Individualization of treatment is the key to optimal management.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 112 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 12%
Other 11 10%
Researcher 11 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Other 23 21%
Unknown 30 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 3%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 32 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 26 July 2023.
All research outputs
#1,977,465
of 24,147,581 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#538
of 8,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,147
of 231,197 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#14
of 156 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,147,581 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,079 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 93% 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 231,197 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 156 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 91% of its contemporaries.