↓ 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, January 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 (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 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, January 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 93 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 90 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 14 15%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Master 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Other 7 8%
Other 24 26%
Unknown 17 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 61%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Computer Science 2 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 18 19%

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
#5,031,258
of 21,390,067 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Medical Research
#95
of 520 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,506
of 345,053 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Medical Research
#8
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,390,067 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 520 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. 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 345,053 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 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.