↓ Skip to main content

Methods for estimating the burden of antimicrobial resistance: a systematic literature review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 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
Methods for estimating the burden of antimicrobial resistance: a systematic literature review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0364-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nichola R. Naylor, Sachin Silva, Kavian Kulasabanathan, Rifat Atun, Nina Zhu, Gwenan M. Knight, Julie Robotham

Abstract

Estimates of the burden of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are needed to ascertain AMR impact, to evaluate interventions, and to allocate resources efficiently. Recent studies have estimated health, cost, and economic burden relating to AMR, with outcomes of interest ranging from drug-bug resistance impact on mortality in a hospital setting to total economic impact of AMR on the global economy. However, recent collation of this information has been largely informal, with no formal quality assessment of the current evidence base (e.g. with predefined checklists). This review therefore aims to establish what perspectives and resulting methodologies have been used in establishing the burden of AMR, whilst also ascertaining the quality of these studies. The literature review will identify relevant literature using a systematic review methodology. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and EconLit will be searched utilising a predefined search string. Grey literature will be identified by searching within a predefined list of organisational websites. Independent screening of retrievals will be performed in a two-stage process (abstracts and full texts), utilising a pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data will be extracted into a data extraction table and descriptive examination will be performed. Study quality will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scales and the Philips checklists where appropriate. A narrative synthesis of the results will be presented. This review will provide an overview of previous health, cost and economic definitions of burden and the resultant impact of these different definitions on the burden of AMR estimated. The review will also explore the methods that have been used to calculate this burden and discuss resulting study quality. This review can therefore act as a guide to methods for future research in this area. PROSPERO CRD42016037510.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 84 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 20%
Student > Master 12 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Other 5 6%
Other 19 22%
Unknown 19 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 22%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Other 23 27%
Unknown 22 26%

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 13 March 2018.
All research outputs
#5,969,280
of 22,032,472 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,127
of 1,921 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,624
of 315,670 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#73
of 130 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,032,472 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,921 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 315,670 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 130 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.