↓ Skip to main content

Do we need new trials of procalcitonin-guided antibiotic therapy?

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, January 2018
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 (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
70 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 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
Do we need new trials of procalcitonin-guided antibiotic therapy?
Published in
Critical Care, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13054-018-1948-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thiago Lisboa, Jorge Salluh, Pedro Povoa

Abstract

Using biomarkers as a guide to tailor the duration of antibiotic treatment in respiratory infections is an attractive hypothesis assessed in several studies. Recent work aiming to summarize the evidence assessed the effect of a procalcitonin (PCT)-guided antibiotic treatment on outcomes in acute lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI), suggesting that significant reductions in antibiotic duration occur when using a PCT-guided algorithm. However, controversial evidence also suggested PCT-guided algorithms were associated with increased antibiotic duration and increased incidence of Clostridium difficile, without any impact on mortality, in real-world settings. So, although using PCT-guided antibiotic stewardship is promising, after more than a decade of randomized controlled trials on this topic the evidence in its favor is still less than compelling due to limitations in trial design, not taking into consideration fundamental aspects of PCT biology, and the absence of evidence-based antimicrobial duration in intervention and control groups. In this commentary we highlight some questions and limitations of primary PCT study data that might impact interpretation and clinical use of PCT at the bedside.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 70 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 10 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Researcher 5 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 10%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 9 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 49%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 14 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. 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 06 September 2023.
All research outputs
#1,029,606
of 25,610,986 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#798
of 6,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,949
of 451,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#29
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,610,986 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,587 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 451,454 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.