The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| Title |
De-escalation of antimicrobial treatment for adults with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd007934.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Abstract |
Mortality rates among patients with sepsis, severe sepsis or septic shock ranges from 27% to 54%. Empirical broad-spectrum antimicrobial treatment is aimed at achieving adequate antimicrobial therapy and 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 with a narrower antimicrobial therapy. This is done by either changing the pharmacological agent or discontinuing a pharmacological combination according to the patient's microbial culture results. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 47 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 14% |
| Researcher | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 12% |
| Other | 12 | 24% |
| Unknown | 6 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 51% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Engineering | 2 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 18% |
| Unknown | 6 | 12% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 August 2011.
All research outputs
#18,810,584
of 23,312,088 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#11,582
of 12,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,391
of 166,023 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#86
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,312,088 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,465 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 32.8. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 166,023 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.