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 |
Patterns of use and appropriateness of antibiotics prescribed to patients receiving haemodialysis: an observational study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Nephrology, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12882-017-0575-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Katrina Hui, Michelle Nalder, Kirsty Buising, Aspasia Pefanis, Khai Y Ooi, Eugenie Pedagogos, Craig Nelson, Carl M. J. Kirkpatrick, David C. M. Kong |
| Abstract |
There are limited published data on the types and appropriateness of oral and intravenous (IV) antibiotics prescribed to patients receiving haemodialysis. This information is critical to optimise antibiotic prescribing. Therefore this study aims to describe the patterns of use and the appropriateness of oral and IV antibiotics prescribed to patients receiving haemodialysis. This was a prospective, observational study across four community and two hospital inpatient haemodialysis units in Melbourne, Australia. Data were collected from July 2014 to January 2015 from participants. Antibiotic regimens prescribed were compared with nationally available antibiotic guidelines and then classified as being either appropriate, inappropriate or not assessable by an expert multidisciplinary team using the National Antimicrobial Prescribing Survey tool. Overall, 114 participants consented to this study where 55.3% (63/114) received antibiotics and 235 antibiotic regimens were prescribed at a rate of 69.1 antibiotic regimens/100 patient-months. The most common oral antibiotics prescribed were amoxycillin/clavulanic acid and cephalexin. The most common IV antibiotics prescribed were vancomycin, piperacillin/tazobactam, cephazolin and ceftriaxone. The percentage of inappropriate antibiotic regimens prescribed were 34.9% (15/43) in the community setting and 22.1% (40/181) in the hospital setting. Furthermore, 29.4% (30/102) of oral and 20.5% (25/122) of IV antibiotic regimens were inappropriate with incorrect dosing as the primary reason. Although this study is limited by the sample size, it describes the high antibiotic exposure that patients receiving haemodialysis experience. Of concern is inappropriate dose and frequency being a major issue. This requires interventions focused on the quality use of medicines and antimicrobial stewardship aspects of prescribing in this population. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 3 | 23% |
| Spain | 1 | 8% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 8% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 8% |
| Canada | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 46% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 69% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 23% |
| Scientists | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 92 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 20 | 22% |
| Unknown | 30 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 23% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 16 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 8% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 2% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 13 | 14% |
| Unknown | 31 | 34% |
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 22 May 2017.
All research outputs
#4,605,556
of 23,509,253 outputs
Outputs from BMC Nephrology
#500
of 2,534 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,289
of 311,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Nephrology
#14
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,509,253 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,534 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 311,241 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.