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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Pharmacodynamics of nine generic products of amikacin compared with the innovator in the neutropenic mouse thigh infection model
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Research Notes, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13104-015-1507-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andres F. Zuluaga, Carlos A. Rodriguez, Maria Agudelo, Omar Vesga |
| Abstract |
Previously, we validated the mouse thigh infection model to test the therapeutic equivalence of generic antibiotic products. Here, our aim was to compare the in vivo efficacy of amikacin products in clinical use in Colombia using this animal model. All except one generic product had the same in vitro potency, judging by the lack of differences on MIC and MBC compared with the innovator. However, eight of nine generic products failed in the neutropenic mouse thigh infection model to achieve the innovator's maximum effect (E max ≤ 5.65 for the generics vs. 6.58 log10 CFU/g for the innovator) against Escherichia coli SIG-1, after subcutaneous treatment every 6 h with doses ranging from 1.5 to 3072 mg/kg per day. As we demonstrated previously with other antibiotics such as vancomycin, gentamicin and oxacillin, the generic products of amikacin failed the in vivo efficacy testing. The therapeutic equivalence should be assessed in vivo before clinical approval of generic products. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 21% |
| Professor | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 17% |
| Unknown | 5 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 50% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 17% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 8% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 4 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 July 2016.
All research outputs
#13,985,702
of 22,880,691 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#1,856
of 4,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,112
of 278,197 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#78
of 188 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,691 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,269 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 278,197 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 188 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 57% of its contemporaries.