↓ Skip to main content

Oral versus intravenous clarithromycin in moderate to severe community-acquired pneumonia: an observational study

Overview of attention for article published in Pneumonia, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#31 of 124)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 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
Oral versus intravenous clarithromycin in moderate to severe community-acquired pneumonia: an observational study
Published in
Pneumonia, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s41479-017-0025-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nikolas Rae, Aran Singanayagam, Stuart Schembri, James D. Chalmers

Abstract

British Thoracic Society guidelines recommend clarithromycin in addition to beta-lactam antibiotics for patients with community-acquired pneumonia and CURB-65 score 2-5. Intravenous therapy is commonly used but there are few data on whether oral therapy is equally effective. This observational study used propensity matching to compare two groups of patients with moderate to severe community-acquired pneumonia (CURB-65 score 2-5) treated with oral (n = 226) or intravenous (n = 226) clarithromycin on admission. Outcomes were 30-day mortality, intensive care unit admission, time to clinical stability, and length of hospital stay. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality (16.8% for intravenous [IV] group vs. 14.6% for oral group, hazard ratio for IV group 1.11 95% CI 0.70-1.78), ICU admission (10.6% in both groups) or complications (10.6% for IV group and 9.3% for oral group) between the groups. The time to clinical stability in both cohorts was a median of 5 days (interquartile range 3-7 days, p = 0.3). The median length of hospital stay was 8 days in the IV group (interquartile range 4-14 days) and 7 days in the oral group (interquartile range 4-13 days), p = 0.5. No other differences were observed between oral and IV groups. Where the oral route is not compromised, oral macrolides appear to be equivalent to IV in treating moderate to severe CAP.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users 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 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Russia 1 3%
Unknown 30 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Student > Master 3 10%
Professor 2 6%
Researcher 2 6%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 13 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 12 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 10 November 2023.
All research outputs
#5,146,499
of 25,093,754 outputs
Outputs from Pneumonia
#31
of 124 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,002
of 431,749 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pneumonia
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,093,754 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 124 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 431,749 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.