↓ Skip to main content

Improved empirical antibiotic treatment of sepsis after an educational intervention: the ABISS-Edusepsis study

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, June 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 (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
75 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 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
Improved empirical antibiotic treatment of sepsis after an educational intervention: the ABISS-Edusepsis study
Published in
Critical Care, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13054-018-2091-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ricard Ferrer, María Luisa Martínez, Gemma Gomà, David Suárez, Luis Álvarez-Rocha, María Victoria de la Torre, Gumersindo González, Rafael Zaragoza, Marcio Borges, Jesús Blanco, Eduardo Palencia Herrejón, Antonio Artigas, for the ABISS-Edusepsis Study group

Abstract

Early appropriate antibiotic treatment is essential in sepsis. We aimed to evaluate the impact of a multifaceted educational intervention to improve antibiotic treatment. We hypothesized that the intervention would hasten and improve the appropriateness of empirical antibiotic administration, favor de-escalation, and decrease mortality. We prospectively studied all consecutive patients with sepsis/septic shock admitted to 72 intensive care units (ICUs) throughout Spain in two 4-month periods (before and immediately after the 3-month intervention). We compared process-of-care variables (resuscitation bundle and time-to-initiation, appropriateness, and de-escalation of empirical antibiotic treatment) and outcome variables between the two cohorts. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. We analyzed the intervention's long-term impact in a subset of 50 ICUs. We included 2628 patients (age 64.1 ± 15.2 years; men 64.0%; Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, 22.0 ± 8.1): 1352 in the preintervention cohort and 1276 in the postintervention cohort. In the postintervention cohort, the mean (SD) time from sepsis onset to empirical antibiotic therapy was lower (2.0 (2.7) vs. 2.5 (3.6) h; p = 0.002), the proportion of inappropriate empirical treatments was lower (6.5% vs. 8.9%; p = 0.024), and the proportion of patients in whom antibiotic treatment was de-escalated was higher (20.1% vs. 16.3%; p = 0.004); the expected reduction in mortality did not reach statistical significance (29.4% in the postintervention cohort vs. 30.5% in the preintervention cohort; p = 0.544). Gains observed after the intervention were maintained in the long-term follow-up period. Despite advances in sepsis treatment, educational interventions can still improve the delivery of care; further improvements might also improve outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 75 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 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 86 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Librarian 6 7%
Other 5 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 17 20%
Unknown 36 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 38 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 46. 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 20 June 2019.
All research outputs
#908,845
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#693
of 6,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,616
of 342,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#18
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,555 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 89% 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 342,290 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 71 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 74% of its contemporaries.