↓ Skip to main content

Procalcitonin-guided diagnosis and antibiotic stewardship revisited

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

24 news outlets
3 blogs
50 tweeters
1 Facebook page
1 Google+ user


182 Dimensions

Readers on

457 Mendeley
1 CiteULike
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.
Procalcitonin-guided diagnosis and antibiotic stewardship revisited
Published in
BMC Medicine, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12916-017-0795-7
Pubmed ID

Ramon Sager, Alexander Kutz, Beat Mueller, Philipp Schuetz


Several controlled clinical studies have evaluated the potential of the infection biomarker procalcitonin (PCT) to improve the diagnostic work-up of patients with bacterial infections and its influence on decisions regarding antibiotic therapy. Most research has focused on lower respiratory tract infections and critically ill sepsis patients. A clinical utility for PCT has also been found for patients with urinary tract infections, postoperative infections, meningitis, and patients with acute heart failure with possible superinfection (i.e., pneumonia). In these indications, PCT levels measured on hospital admission were found to substantially reduce the initiation of antibiotic treatment in low-risk situations (i.e., bronchitis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation). For more severe infections (i.e., pneumonia, sepsis), antibiotic stewardship by monitoring of PCT kinetics resulted in shorter antibiotic treatment durations with early cessation of therapy. Importantly, these strategies appear to be safe without increasing the risk for mortality, recurrent infections, or treatment failures. PCT kinetics also proved to have prognostic value correlating with disease severity (i.e., pancreatitis, abdominal infection) and resolution of illness (i.e., sepsis). Although promising findings have been published in these different types of infections, there are a number of limitations regarding PCT, including suboptimal sensitivity and/or specificity, which makes a careful interpretation of PCT in the clinical context mandatory. This narrative review aims to update clinicians on the strengths and limitations of PCT for patient management, focusing on research conducted within the last 4 years.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 50 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 457 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Pakistan 1 <1%
Unknown 453 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 68 15%
Student > Postgraduate 57 12%
Student > Master 50 11%
Researcher 46 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 35 8%
Other 110 24%
Unknown 91 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 245 54%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 14 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 2%
Other 45 10%
Unknown 103 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 217. 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 18 May 2021.
All research outputs
of 21,945,694 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
of 3,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 394,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,945,694 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,219 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 42.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 394,579 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them