↓ Skip to main content

Microorganisms resistant to conventional antimicrobials in acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Overview of attention for article published in Respiratory Research, June 2018
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 (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
Microorganisms resistant to conventional antimicrobials in acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Published in
Respiratory Research, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12931-018-0820-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cristina Estirado, Adrian Ceccato, Monica Guerrero, Arturo Huerta, Catia Cilloniz, Olivia Vilaró, Albert Gabarrús, Joaquim Gea, Ernesto Crisafulli, Nestor Soler, Antoni Torres

Abstract

Antimicrobial treatment for acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) remains controversial. In some cases AECOPD are caused by microorganisms that are resistant to treatments recommended by guidelines. Our aims were: 1) identify the risk factors associated with infection by microorganisms resistant to conventional treatment (MRCT), 2) Compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with AECOPD resulting from MRCT against those with AECOPD from other causes. We prospective analysed a cohort of patients admitted with severe AECOPD (2009 to 2015) who were assigned to three groups: patients with MRCT (those patients with germs resistant to antibiotics recommended in guidelines), patients with microorganisms sensitive to conventional antimicrobial treatment (MSCT), and patients with negative microbiology results who had not previously received antibiotics. Multinomial logistic regression analyses were used to examine the associations between microbial aetiology groups and risk factors. The association between LOS and risk factors was also tested in simple and multiple analyses, and similar inclusion criteria were applied for the linear regression analysis. Of the 451 patients admitted, 195 patients (43%) were included. Respiratory cultures were positive in 86(44%) and negative in 109(56%). MRCT were isolated in 34 cases (40%) and MSCT in 52 (60%). Patients with MRCT had more AECOPD in the previous year, received more antibiotic treatment in the previous three months, had more severe disease, higher dyspnoea and a positive respiratory culture in the previous year (mainly for Pseudomonas aeruginosa). The following conditions were independent factors for MRCT isolation: non-current smoker (odds ratio [OR] 4.19 [95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29-13.67], p = 0.017), ≥ 2 AECOPD or ≥ 1 admission for AECOPD in the previous year (OR 4.13 [95% CI 1.52-11.17], p = 0.005), C-reactive protein < 5 mg/dL; (OR 3.58 [95% CI 1.41-9.07], p = 0.007). Mortality rates were comparable at 30-days, one year and 3 years; however, patients in the MRCT group had longer hospital stays. In conclusion, there are risk factors for resistant germs in AECOPD; however, the presence of these germs does not increase mortality. Patients with isolation of MRCT had longer length of stay.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Master 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 3 7%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 18 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 22 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 18 June 2018.
All research outputs
#5,168,664
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Respiratory Research
#639
of 3,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,831
of 341,817 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Respiratory Research
#16
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,062 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 341,817 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 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.