↓ Skip to main content

Beta-lactam antibiotic dosing during continuous renal replacement therapy: how can we optimize therapy?

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Beta-lactam antibiotic dosing during continuous renal replacement therapy: how can we optimize therapy?
Published in
Critical Care, June 2014
DOI 10.1186/cc13945
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jan J De Waele, Mieke Carlier

Abstract

Correct antibiotic treatment is of utmost importance to treat infections in critically ill patients, not only in terms of spectrum and timing but also in terms of dosing. However, this is a real challenge for the clinician because the pathophysiology (such as shock, augmented renal clearance, and multiple organ dysfunction) has a major impact on the pharmacokinetics of hydrophilic antibiotics. The presence of extra-corporal circuits, such as continuous renal replacement therapy, may further complicate this difficult exercise. Standard dosing may result in inadequate concentrations, but unadjusted dosing regimens may lead to toxicity. Recent studies confirm the variability in concentrations, and the wide variation in dialysis techniques used certainly contributes to these findings. Well-designed clinical studies are needed to provide the data from which robust dosing guidance can be developed. In the meantime, non-adjusted dosing in the first 1 to 2 days of antibiotic therapy during continuous renal replacement therapy followed by dose reduction later on seems to be a prudent approach.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 3%
Unknown 29 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 23%
Other 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Student > Master 2 7%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 6 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Chemistry 1 3%
Unknown 8 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 30 July 2014.
All research outputs
#17,286,645
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,469
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,342
of 242,711 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#111
of 138 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 242,711 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 138 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.