↓ Skip to main content

Recent advances in the treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosainfections in cystic fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, April 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
patent
2 patents
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
191 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
378 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
Recent advances in the treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosainfections in cystic fibrosis
Published in
BMC Medicine, April 2011
DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-9-32
Pubmed ID
Authors

Niels Høiby

Abstract

Chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa lung infection in cystic fibrosis (CF) patients is caused by biofilm-growing mucoid strains. Biofilms can be prevented by early aggressive antibiotic prophylaxis or therapy, and they can be treated by chronic suppressive therapy. New results from one small trial suggest that addition of oral ciprofloxacin to inhaled tobramycin may reduce lung inflammation. Clinical trials with new formulations of old antibiotics for inhalation therapy (aztreonam lysine) against chronic P. aeruginosa infection improved patient-reported outcome, lung function, time to acute exacerbations and sputum density of P. aeruginosa. Other drugs such as quinolones are currently under investigation for inhalation therapy. A trial of the use of anti-Pseudomonas antibiotics for long-term prophylaxis showed no effect in patients who were not already infected. Use of azithromycin to treat CF patients without P. aeruginosa infection did not improve lung function. Here I review the recent advances in the treatment of P. aeruginosa lung infections with a focus on inhalation treatments targeted at prophylaxis and chronic suppressive therapy.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 378 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 6 2%
United States 3 <1%
Denmark 2 <1%
Japan 2 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Other 5 1%
Unknown 354 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 63 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 62 16%
Researcher 56 15%
Student > Bachelor 52 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 24 6%
Other 65 17%
Unknown 56 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 103 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 85 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 33 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 29 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 25 7%
Other 39 10%
Unknown 64 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 29 November 2021.
All research outputs
#1,673,432
of 22,747,498 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,171
of 3,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,203
of 109,029 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#9
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,747,498 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,413 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 109,029 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.