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 |
Impact of switching from intravenous to oral linezolid therapy in Japanese patients: a retrospective cohort study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40545-016-0087-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Akihiro Tanaka, Akiko Yano, Shinichi Watanabe, Mamoru Tanaka, Hiroaki Araki |
| Abstract |
High oral bioavailability of antimicrobial agents can result in the replacement of intravenous (IV) therapy with oral therapy when a patient meets defined clinical criteria. However, few studies have evaluated the effects of switching antibiotic administration route in Japan, especially for linezolid. This study evaluated an IV-to-oral antibiotic switching program for linezolid treatment at a university hospital in Japan. In a retrospective cohort study of 73 patients, we assessed the efficacy and safety of IV-to-oral linezolid therapy (n = 21 patients) compared with IV therapy alone (n = 52 patients). Duration of linezolid treatment, changes in C-reactive protein or platelet count from baseline, re-administration of anti-methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus agent within 90 days of discharge, and mortality within 28 days of discharge were not significantly different between the two groups. An IV-to-oral switching program could reduce the duration of IV linezolid therapy without worsening clinical outcomes in Japanese patients receiving linezolid therapy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 15 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 33% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 13% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Researcher | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 4 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 33% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 33% |
| Unknown | 5 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 12 April 2022.
All research outputs
#6,102,978
of 23,523,017 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
#131
of 432 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,205
of 315,599 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
#4
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,523,017 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 432 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 315,599 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.