↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

De-escalation of antimicrobial treatment for adults with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
224 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
De-escalation of antimicrobial treatment for adults with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007934.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brenda NG Silva, Régis B Andriolo, Álvaro N Atallah, Reinaldo Salomão

Abstract

Mortality rates among patients with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock are highly variable throughout different regions or services and can be upwards of 50%. Empirical broad-spectrum antimicrobial treatment is aimed at achieving adequate antimicrobial therapy, thus reducing mortality; however, there is a risk that empirical broad-spectrum antimicrobial treatment can expose patients to overuse of antimicrobials. De-escalation has been proposed as a strategy to replace empirical broad-spectrum antimicrobial treatment by using a narrower antimicrobial therapy. This is done by reviewing the patient's microbial culture results and then making changes to the pharmacological agent or discontinuing a pharmacological combination.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 224 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 220 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 31 14%
Student > Master 26 12%
Researcher 23 10%
Student > Postgraduate 22 10%
Other 19 8%
Other 64 29%
Unknown 39 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 117 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 13 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Other 20 9%
Unknown 44 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 11 June 2016.
All research outputs
#1,829,733
of 18,907,259 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,313
of 11,886 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,615
of 168,102 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#32
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,907,259 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,886 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 168,102 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 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 70% of its contemporaries.