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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The potential of liposome–encapsulated ciprofloxacin as a tularemia therapy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, June 2014
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fcimb.2014.00079 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Karleigh A. Hamblin, Jonathan P. Wong, James D. Blanchard, Helen S. Atkins |
| Abstract |
Liposome-encapsulation has been suggested as method to improve the efficacy of ciprofloxacin against the intracellular pathogen, Francisella tularensis. Early work with a prototype formulation, evaluated for use against the F. tularensis live vaccine strain, showed that a single dose of liposomal ciprofloxacin given by the intranasal or inhalational route could provide protection in a mouse model of pneumonic tularemia. Liposomal ciprofloxacin offered better protection than ciprofloxacin given by the same routes. Liposomal ciprofloxacin has been further developed by Aradigm Corporation for Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections in patients with cystic fibrosis and non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis. This advanced development formulation is safe, effective and well tolerated in human clinical trials. Further evaluation of the advanced liposomal ciprofloxacin formulation against the highly virulent F. tularensis Schu S4 strain has shown that aerosolized CFI (Ciprofloxacin encapsulated in liposomes for inhalation) provides significantly better protection than oral ciprofloxacin. Thus, liposomal ciprofloxacin is a promising treatment for tularemia and further research with the aim of enabling licensure under the animal rule is warranted. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 52 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 17% |
| Researcher | 8 | 15% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 9% |
| Professor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 10 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 21% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 8 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 13% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 6 | 11% |
| Engineering | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 8 | 15% |
| Unknown | 10 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 08 July 2014.
All research outputs
#20,232,430
of 22,758,248 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
#5,918
of 6,348 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,589
of 228,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
#25
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,758,248 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,348 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 228,273 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.