↓ Skip to main content

Development of quality indicators for antimicrobial treatment in adults with sepsis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, June 2014
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 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
Development of quality indicators for antimicrobial treatment in adults with sepsis
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, June 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2334-14-345
Pubmed ID
Authors

Caroline MA van den Bosch, Marlies EJL Hulscher, Stephanie Natsch, Inge C Gyssens, Jan M Prins, Suzanne E Geerlings, Dutch Sepsis QI expert panel

Abstract

Outcomes in patients with sepsis are better if initial empirical antimicrobial use is appropriate. Several studies have shown that adherence to guidelines dictating appropriate antimicrobial use positively influences clinical outcome, shortens length of hospital stay and contributes to the containment of antibiotic resistance.Quality indicators (QIs) can be systematically developed from these guidelines to define and measure appropriate antimicrobial use. We describe the development of a concise set of QIs to assess the appropriateness of antimicrobial use in adult patients with sepsis on a general medical ward or Intensive Care Unit (ICU).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 114 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 13%
Other 14 12%
Student > Master 14 12%
Researcher 12 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Other 24 20%
Unknown 33 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 40%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 33 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 July 2015.
All research outputs
#2,139,593
of 25,225,182 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#595
of 8,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,736
of 234,952 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#14
of 167 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,225,182 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,504 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 234,952 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 167 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.