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 |
How and when to use common biomarkers in community-acquired pneumonia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Pneumonia, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s41479-016-0017-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Erica J. Shaddock |
| Abstract |
Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a leading cause of death in both the developed and developing world. The very young and elderly are especially vulnerable. Even with appropriate early antibiotics we still have not improved the outcomes in these patients since the 1950s, with 30-day case fatality rates of between 10-12%. Interventions to improve outcomes include immunomodulatory agents such as macrolides and corticosteroids. Treating doctors identify CAP patients who are likely to have poor outcomes by using severity scores such as the pneumonia severity index and CURB-65, which allows these patients to be placed in ICU settings from the start of the admission. Another novel way to identify these patients is with the use of biomarkers. This review illustrates how various biomarkers have been shown to predict mortality, complications and response to treatment in CAP patients. The evidence using either procalcitonin or C-reactive protein to demonstrate response to treatment and hence that the antibiotics chosen are appropriate can play an important role in antibiotic stewardship. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 70 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 13% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 12 | 17% |
| Unknown | 19 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 39% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 4% |
| Materials Science | 3 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 11 | 16% |
| Unknown | 21 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 07 April 2017.
All research outputs
#13,996,981
of 22,899,952 outputs
Outputs from Pneumonia
#68
of 110 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,499
of 313,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pneumonia
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,899,952 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 110 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 313,743 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.