↓ Skip to main content

How to treat severe infections in critically ill neutropenic patients?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, November 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 (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 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
How to treat severe infections in critically ill neutropenic patients?
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2334-14-512
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lara Zafrani, Elie Azoulay

Abstract

Severe infections in neutropenic patient often progress rapidly leading to life-threatening organ dysfunction requiring admission to the Intensive Care Unit. Management strategies include early adequate appropriate empirical antimicrobial, early admission to ICU to avoid any delay in the diagnostic and therapeutic management of organ dysfunction. This review discusses the main clinical situations encountered in critically ill neutropenic patients. Specific diagnostic and therapeutic approaches have been proposed for acute respiratory failure, shock, neutropenic enterocolitis, catheter-related infections, cellulitis and primary bacteriemia. Non anti-infectious agents and recent advances will also be discussed. At present, most of large-scale studies and recommendations in neutropenic patients stem from hematological patients and will need further validation in ICU patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 82 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 11 13%
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Postgraduate 8 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Student > Master 7 8%
Other 23 28%
Unknown 17 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 20 24%
Attention Score in Context

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 05 December 2014.
All research outputs
#3,548,442
of 22,772,779 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#1,119
of 7,668 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,640
of 361,884 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#25
of 195 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,772,779 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 7,668 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 361,884 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 195 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.