↓ Skip to main content

Renal Dosing of Antibiotics: Are We Jumping the Gun?

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Infectious Diseases, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
235 tweeters
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
Renal Dosing of Antibiotics: Are We Jumping the Gun?
Published in
Clinical Infectious Diseases, September 2018
DOI 10.1093/cid/ciy790
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ryan L Crass, Keith A Rodvold, Bruce A Mueller, Manjunath P Pai

Abstract

Antibiotic renal dose adjustments are determined in subjects with stable chronic kidney disease and may not translate to patients in late phase trials and practice. Ceftolozane/tazobactam, ceftazidime/avibactam, and telavancin all carry precautionary statements for reduced clinical response in patients with baseline creatinine clearance 30 - 50 mL/min, potentially due to unnecessary dose reduction in the setting of acute kidney injury (AKI). In this review, we discuss the regulatory landscape for antibiotics eliminated by the kidney and highlight the importance of the first 48 hours of therapy. Using a clinical database, we identify AKI on admission in a substantial proportion of patients with pneumonia (27.1%), intra-abdominal (19.5%), urinary tract (20.0%), or skin and skin structure infections (9.7%) that resolved by 48 hours in 57.2% of cases. We suggest that deferred renal dose reduction of wide therapeutic index antibiotics could improve outcomes in patients with infectious diseases.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 235 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 9 35%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 12%
Researcher 3 12%
Unspecified 3 12%
Professor 2 8%
Other 6 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 46%
Unspecified 8 31%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 159. 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 09 June 2019.
All research outputs
#84,475
of 13,127,699 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Infectious Diseases
#107
of 10,756 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,634
of 262,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Infectious Diseases
#3
of 161 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,127,699 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,756 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 262,457 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 161 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 98% of its contemporaries.