↓ Skip to main content

Continuous beta-lactam infusion in critically ill patients: the clinical evidence

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 Mendeley
Title
Continuous beta-lactam infusion in critically ill patients: the clinical evidence
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, August 2012
DOI 10.1186/2110-5820-2-37
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mohd H Abdul-Aziz, Joel M Dulhunty, Rinaldo Bellomo, Jeffrey Lipman, Jason A Roberts

Abstract

There is controversy over whether traditional intermittent bolus dosing or continuous infusion of beta-lactam antibiotics is preferable in critically ill patients. No significant difference between these two dosing strategies in terms of patient outcomes has been shown yet. This is despite compelling in vitro and in vivo pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) data. A lack of significance in clinical outcome studies may be due to several methodological flaws potentially masking the benefits of continuous infusion observed in preclinical studies. In this review, we explore the methodological shortcomings of the published clinical studies and describe the criteria that should be considered for performing a definitive clinical trial. We found that most trials utilized inconsistent antibiotic doses and recruited only small numbers of heterogeneous patient groups. The results of these trials suggest that continuous infusion of beta-lactam antibiotics may have variable efficacy in different patient groups. Patients who may benefit from continuous infusion are critically ill patients with a high level of illness severity. Thus, future trials should test the potential clinical advantages of continuous infusion in this patient population. To further ascertain whether benefits of continuous infusion in critically ill patients do exist, a large-scale, prospective, multinational trial with a robust design is required.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 2 2%
Spain 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Philippines 1 <1%
Unknown 93 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 17 17%
Student > Postgraduate 15 15%
Researcher 15 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 25 25%
Unknown 12 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 62%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 17 17%

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 01 December 2012.
All research outputs
#16,628,262
of 18,796,975 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#783
of 872 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,971
of 264,200 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#25
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,796,975 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 872 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 264,200 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.