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 |
Design and rationale of the Procalcitonin Antibiotic Consensus Trial (ProACT), a multicenter randomized trial of procalcitonin antibiotic guidance in lower respiratory tract infection
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Emergency Medicine, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12873-017-0138-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David T. Huang, Derek C. Angus, Chung-Chou H. Chang, Yohei Doi, Michael J. Fine, John A. Kellum, Octavia M. Peck-Palmer, Francis Pike, Lisa A. Weissfeld, Jonathan Yabes, Donald M. Yealy, on behalf of the ProACT Investigators |
| Abstract |
Overuse of antibiotics is a major public health problem, contributing to growing antibiotic resistance. Procalcitonin has been reported to be commonly elevated in bacterial, but not viral infection. Multiple European trials found procalcitonin-guided care reduced antibiotic use in lower respiratory tract infection, with no apparent harm. However, applicability to US practice is limited due to trial design features impractical in the US, between-country differences, and residual safety concerns. The Procalcitonin Antibiotic Consensus Trial (ProACT) is a multicenter randomized trial to determine the impact of a procalcitonin antibiotic prescribing guideline, implemented with basic reproducible strategies, in US patients with lower respiratory tract infection. We describe the trial methods using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) framework, and the rationale for key design decisions, including choice of eligibility criteria, choice of control arm, and approach to guideline implementation. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02130986 . Registered May 1, 2014. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 70 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 13% |
| Researcher | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 14 | 20% |
| Unknown | 27 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 29% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Unknown | 29 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 07 February 2019.
All research outputs
#3,665,052
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from BMC Emergency Medicine
#166
of 758 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,363
of 315,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Emergency Medicine
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 758 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 315,942 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.