↓ Skip to main content

Clinical review: Balancing the therapeutic, safety, and economic issues underlying effective antipseudomonal carbapenem use

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, January 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
Clinical review: Balancing the therapeutic, safety, and economic issues underlying effective antipseudomonal carbapenem use
Published in
Critical Care, January 2008
DOI 10.1186/cc6994
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas G Slama

Abstract

Antipseudomonal carbapenems have played a useful role in our antimicrobial armamentarium for 20 years. However, a review of their use during that period creates concern that their clinical effectiveness is critically dependent on attainment of an appropriate dosing range. Unfortunately, adequate carbapenem dosing is missed for many reasons, including benefit/risk misconceptions, a narrow therapeutic window for imipenem and meropenem (due to an increased rate of seizures at higher doses), increasingly resistant pathogens requiring higher doses than are typically given, and cost containment issues that may limit their use. To improve the use of carbapenems, several initiatives should be considered: increase awareness about appropriate treatment with carbapenems across hospital departments; determine optimal dosing regimens for settings where multidrug resistant organisms are more likely encountered; use of, or combination with, an alternative antimicrobial agent having more favorable pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, or adverse event profile; and administer a newer carbapenem with lower propensity for resistance development (for example, reduced expression of efflux pumps or greater stability against carbapenemases).

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 4%
Argentina 1 2%
Unknown 51 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 15%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Postgraduate 6 11%
Professor 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Other 18 33%
Unknown 4 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 59%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 7%
Environmental Science 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 6 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 13 October 2015.
All research outputs
#1,408,097
of 6,237,522 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,412
of 2,946 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,037
of 193,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#108
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,237,522 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,946 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 193,994 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 121 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.