↓ Skip to main content

Antibiotic stewardship in the intensive care unit

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
10 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
43 tweeters
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
162 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
466 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
Antibiotic stewardship in the intensive care unit
Published in
Critical Care, August 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13054-014-0480-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charles-Edouard Luyt, Nicolas Bréchot, Jean-Louis Trouillet, Jean Chastre

Abstract

The rapid emergence and dissemination of antimicrobial-resistant microorganisms in ICUs worldwide constitute a problem of crisis dimensions. The root causes of this problem are multifactorial, but the core issues are clear. The emergence of antibiotic resistance is highly correlated with selective pressure resulting from inappropriate use of these drugs. Appropriate antibiotic stewardship in ICUs includes not only rapid identification and optimal treatment of bacterial infections in these critically ill patients, based on pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic characteristics, but also improving our ability to avoid administering unnecessary broad-spectrum antibiotics, shortening the duration of their administration, and reducing the numbers of patients receiving undue antibiotic therapy. Either we will be able to implement such a policy or we and our patients will face an uncontrollable surge of very difficult-to-treat pathogens.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 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 466 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 463 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 96 21%
Student > Master 83 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 49 11%
Researcher 41 9%
Student > Postgraduate 28 6%
Other 75 16%
Unknown 94 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 121 26%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 59 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 53 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 34 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 28 6%
Other 67 14%
Unknown 104 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 105. 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 02 March 2021.
All research outputs
#258,365
of 18,929,457 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#148
of 5,536 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,139
of 220,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#2
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,929,457 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,536 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 220,209 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 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 99% of its contemporaries.