↓ Skip to main content

Encouraging rational antibiotic use in childhood pneumonia: a focus on Vietnam and the Western Pacific Region

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 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
Encouraging rational antibiotic use in childhood pneumonia: a focus on Vietnam and the Western Pacific Region
Published in
Pneumonia, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s41479-017-0031-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nguyen T. K. Phuong, Tran T. Hoang, Pham H. Van, Lolyta Tu, Stephen M. Graham, Ben J. Marais

Abstract

Globally, pneumonia is considered to be the biggest killer of infants and young children (aged <5 years) outside the neonatal period, with the greatest disease burden in low- and middle-income countries. Optimal management of childhood pneumonia is challenging in settings where clinicians have limited information regarding the local pathogen and drug resistance profiles. This frequently results in unnecessary and poorly targeted antibiotic use. Restricting antibiotic use is a global priority, particularly in Asia and the Western Pacific Region where excessive use is driving high rates of antimicrobial resistance. The authors conducted a comprehensive literature review to explore the antibiotic resistance profile of bacteria associated with pneumonia in the Western Pacific Region, with a focus on Vietnam. Current management practices were also considered, along with the diagnostic dilemmas faced by doctors and other factors that increase unnecessary antibiotic use. This review offers some suggestions on how these issues may be addressed.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 16%
Student > Master 10 15%
Researcher 6 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Other 4 6%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 24 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 4%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 23 34%
Attention Score in Context

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 12 November 2017.
All research outputs
#14,549,452
of 23,301,510 outputs
Outputs from Pneumonia
#73
of 114 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#173,259
of 310,531 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pneumonia
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,301,510 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 114 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 310,531 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.