↓ Skip to main content

A cluster randomized trial for the implementation of an antibiotic checklist based on validated quality indicators: the AB-checklist

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 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
A cluster randomized trial for the implementation of an antibiotic checklist based on validated quality indicators: the AB-checklist
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12879-015-0867-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frederike V van Daalen, Jan M Prins, Brent C Opmeer, Marja A Boermeester, Caroline E Visser, Reinier M van Hest, Marlies E J L Hulscher, Suzanne E Geerlings

Abstract

Recently we developed and validated generic quality indicators that define 'appropriate antibiotic use' in hospitalized adults treated for a (suspected) bacterial infection. Previous studies have shown that with appropriate antibiotic use a reduction of 13% of length of hospital stay can be achieved. Our main objective in this project is to provide hospitals with an antibiotic checklist based on these quality indicators, and to evaluate the introduction of this checklist in terms of (cost-) effectiveness. The checklist applies to hospitalized adults with a suspected bacterial infection for whom antibiotic therapy is initiated, at first via the intravenous route. A stepped wedge study design will be used, comparing outcomes before and after introduction of the checklist in nine hospitals in the Netherlands. At least 810 patients will be included in both the control and the intervention group. The primary endpoint is length of hospital stay. Secondary endpoints are appropriate antibiotic use measured by the quality indicators, admission to and duration of intensive care unit stay, readmission within 30 days, mortality, total antibiotic use, and costs associated with implementation and hospital stay. Differences in numerical endpoints between the two periods will be evaluated with mixed linear models; for dichotomous outcomes generalized estimating equation models will be used. A process evaluation will be performed to evaluate the professionals' compliance with use of the checklist. The key question for the economic evaluation is whether the benefits of the checklist, which include reduced antibiotic use, reduced length of stay and associated costs, justify the costs associated with implementation activities as well as daily use of the checklist. If (cost-) effective, the AB-checklist will provide physicians with a tool to support appropriate antibiotic use in adult hospitalized patients who start with intravenous antibiotics. Dutch trial registry: NTR4872.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 1%
Portugal 1 1%
Unknown 91 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 16%
Researcher 13 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 12%
Other 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Other 19 20%
Unknown 21 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 39%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 3%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 26 28%
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 07 April 2016.
All research outputs
#13,677,141
of 24,396,012 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#3,152
of 8,162 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,692
of 268,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#48
of 155 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,396,012 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,162 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 268,159 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 155 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 68% of its contemporaries.