↓ 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, October 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
68 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, October 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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 3%
Unknown 66 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 16%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Postgraduate 6 9%
Professor 6 9%
Other 22 32%
Unknown 8 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 47%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Environmental Science 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 11 16%
Attention Score in Context

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 25 February 2023.
All research outputs
#8,534,976
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#4,396
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,218
of 104,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#12
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 104,326 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.