↓ 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)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
279 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 279 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 275 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 38 14%
Student > Master 30 11%
Researcher 26 9%
Student > Postgraduate 24 9%
Other 22 8%
Other 76 27%
Unknown 63 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 130 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 15 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 2%
Other 33 12%
Unknown 69 25%
Attention Score in Context

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
#2,552,461
of 25,381,783 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,175
of 12,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,271
of 205,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#80
of 212 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,381,783 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,999 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 205,256 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 212 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 62% of its contemporaries.