↓ Skip to main content

Empirical use of antibiotics and adjustment of empirical antibiotic therapies in a university hospital: a prospective observational study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, March 2007
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 (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
143 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
Empirical use of antibiotics and adjustment of empirical antibiotic therapies in a university hospital: a prospective observational study
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, March 2007
DOI 10.1186/1471-2334-7-21
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julian Mettler, Mathew Simcock, Pedram Sendi, Andreas F Widmer, Roland Bingisser, Manuel Battegay, Ursula Fluckiger, Stefano Bassetti

Abstract

Several strategies to optimise the use of antibiotics have been developed. Most of these interventions can be classified as educational or restrictive. Restrictive measures are considered to be more effective, but the enforcement of these measures may be difficult and lead to conflicts with prescribers. Any intervention should be aimed at targets with the highest impact on antibiotic prescribing. The aim of the present study was to assess the adequacy of empirical and adjusted antibiotic therapies in a Swiss university hospital where no antibiotic use restrictions are enforced, and to identify risk factors for inadequate treatment and targets for intervention.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 138 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 11%
Student > Master 16 11%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Researcher 11 8%
Other 10 7%
Other 28 20%
Unknown 49 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 34%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 3%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Other 15 10%
Unknown 51 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 01 November 2017.
All research outputs
#3,715,396
of 22,696,971 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#1,185
of 7,644 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,779
of 76,697 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#2
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,696,971 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,644 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 76,697 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.