↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Continuous versus intermittent infusions of antibiotics for the treatment of severe acute infections

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
81 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
239 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Continuous versus intermittent infusions of antibiotics for the treatment of severe acute infections
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008481.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer R Shiu, Erica Wang, Aaron M Tejani, Michael Wasdell

Abstract

Intravenous broad-spectrum antibiotics are indicated for the treatment of severe infections. However, the emergence of infections caused by multi-drug resistant organisms in conjunction with a lack of novel antibiotics has prompted the investigation of alternative dosing strategies to improve clinical efficacy and tolerability. To optimise pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic antibiotic parameters, continuous antibiotic infusions have been compared to traditional intermittent antibiotic infusions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 239 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 233 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 30 13%
Researcher 29 12%
Student > Master 29 12%
Student > Postgraduate 26 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 10%
Other 53 22%
Unknown 47 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 119 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 4%
Psychology 7 3%
Other 19 8%
Unknown 56 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 04 November 2023.
All research outputs
#7,283,763
of 25,381,384 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,850
of 12,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,450
of 205,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#150
of 212 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,381,384 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,960 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 205,816 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 72% 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 is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.