↓ Skip to main content

Antimicrobial Treatmdent of "Complicated" Intra-Abdominal Infections and The New IDSA Guidelines - A Commentary and an Alternative European Approach According to Clinical Definitions

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Medical Research, March 2011
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 (71st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Antimicrobial Treatmdent of "Complicated" Intra-Abdominal Infections and The New IDSA Guidelines - A Commentary and an Alternative European Approach According to Clinical Definitions
Published in
European Journal of Medical Research, March 2011
DOI 10.1186/2047-783x-16-3-115
Pubmed ID
Authors

C Eckmann, M Dryden, P Montravers, R Kozlov, G Sganga

Abstract

Recently, an update of the IDSA guidelines for the treatment of complicated intraabdominal infections has been published. No guideline can cater for all variations in ecology, antimicrobial resistance patterns, patient characteristics and presentation, health care and reimbursement systems in many different countries. In the short time the IDSA guidelines have been available, a number of practical clinical issues have been raised by physicians regarding interpretation of the guidelines. The main debatable issues of the new IDSA guidelines are described as follows: The authors of the IDSA guidelines present recommendations for the following subgroups of "complicated" IAI: community-acquired intra-abdominal infections of mild-to-moderate and high severity and health care-associated intra-abdominal infections (no general treatment recommendations, only information about antimicrobial therapy of specific resistant bacterial isolates). From a clinical point of view, "complicated" IAI are better differentiated into primary, secondary (community-acquired and postoperative) and tertiary peritonitis. Those are the clinical presentations of IAI as seen in the emergency room, the general ward and on ICU. Future antibiotic treatment studies of IAI would be more clinically relevant if they included patients in studies for the efficacy and safety of antibiotics for the treatment of the above mentioned forms of IAI, rather than conducting studies based on the vague term "complicated" intra-abdominal infections. - The new IDSA guidelines for the treatment of resistant bacteria fail to mention many of new available drugs, although clinical data for the treatment of "complicated IAI" with new substances exist. Furthermore, treatment recommendations for cIAI caused by VRE are not included. This group of diseases comprises enough patients (i.e. the entire group of postoperative and tertiary peritonitis, recurrent interventions in bile duct surgery or necrotizing pancreatitis) to provide specific recommendations for such antimicrobial treatment. - A panel of European colleagues from surgery, intensive care, clinical microbiology and infectious diseases has developed recommendations based on the above mentioned clinical entities with the aim of providing clear therapeutic recommendations for specific clinical diagnoses. An individual patient-centered approach for this very important group of diseases with a substantial morbidity and mortality is essential for optimal antimicrobial treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Unknown 103 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 14 13%
Student > Master 12 11%
Researcher 11 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Other 26 25%
Unknown 25 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 59 56%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 26 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 21 July 2020.
All research outputs
#6,237,961
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Medical Research
#174
of 923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,024
of 120,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Medical Research
#2
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 120,366 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.