↓ Skip to main content

Design and rationale of the Procalcitonin Antibiotic Consensus Trial (ProACT), a multicenter randomized trial of procalcitonin antibiotic guidance in lower respiratory tract infection

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Emergency Medicine, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
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

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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Researcher 5 9%
Other 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 12 22%
Unknown 17 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 39%
Unspecified 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 19 35%

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
#2,628,886
of 16,725,099 outputs
Outputs from BMC Emergency Medicine
#104
of 494 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,601
of 277,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Emergency Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,725,099 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 494 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 277,616 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 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them