↓ Skip to main content

Early response to antibiotic treatment in European patients hospitalized with complicated skin and soft tissue infections: analysis of the REACH study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 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
Early response to antibiotic treatment in European patients hospitalized with complicated skin and soft tissue infections: analysis of the REACH study
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12879-015-0822-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Javier Garau, Francesco Blasi, Jesús Medina, Kyle McBride, Helmut Ostermann, on behalf of the REACH study group

Abstract

The treatment of complicated skin and soft tissue infections (cSSTI) is challenging and many patients do not receive adequate first-line therapy. REACH (REtrospective Study to Assess the Clinical Management of Patients With Moderate-to-Severe cSSTI or Community-Acquired Pneumonia in the Hospital Setting) was a retrospective observational study of cSSTI patients in real-life settings in European hospitals. In this analysis, we review characteristics and outcomes of patients with an early response (≤72 hours) compared with those without an early response to treatment. We also compare the results according to two differing definitions of early response, one of which (Definition 1) requires resolution of fever within 72 hours, in line with previous US FDA guidelines. Patients were adults hospitalized with cSSTIs 2010-2011 and requiring treatment with intravenous antibiotics. Clinical management, clinical outcomes and healthcare resource use were assessed using a descriptive analysis approach. The analysis set included 600 patients, of which 363 showed early response with Definition 1 and 417 with Definition 2. Initial treatment modification was frequent, and highest in patients without early response (48.1% with Definition 1). Patients without early response were more likely to have diabetes than those with early response (31.6% vs. 22.9%, respectively) and to suffer from more severe disease (e.g. skin necrosis: 14.8% and 7.7%, respectively), to be infected with difficult-to-treat microorganisms and to have recurrent infections. Furthermore, patients without early response had a higher rate of adverse clinical outcomes (e.g. septic shock) and higher use of healthcare resources. The results obtained with the two definitions for early response were largely similar. This study highlights the significance of early evaluation of patients in hospitals, in potentially preventing prolonged use of inappropriate or ineffective antibacterial therapy. NCT01293435 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 69 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 11 16%
Researcher 11 16%
Student > Bachelor 10 14%
Student > Master 6 9%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 14 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 46%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 20 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 19 February 2015.
All research outputs
#13,195,543
of 22,792,160 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#3,162
of 7,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,113
of 255,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#57
of 159 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,792,160 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,674 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 255,121 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 159 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 62% of its contemporaries.