↓ Skip to main content

Role of biomarkers in the management of antibiotic therapy: an expert panel review II: clinical use of biomarkers for initiation or discontinuation of antibiotic therapy

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, July 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 (80th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
135 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Role of biomarkers in the management of antibiotic therapy: an expert panel review II: clinical use of biomarkers for initiation or discontinuation of antibiotic therapy
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, July 2013
DOI 10.1186/2110-5820-3-21
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jean-Pierre Quenot, Charles-Edouard Luyt, Nicolas Roche, Martin Chalumeau, Pierre-Emmanuel Charles, Yann-Eric Claessens, Sigismond Lasocki, Jean-Pierre Bedos, Yves Péan, François Philippart, Stéphanie Ruiz, Christele Gras-Leguen, Anne-Marie Dupuy, Jérôme Pugin, Jean-Paul Stahl, Benoit Misset, Rémy Gauzit, Christian Brun-Buisson

Abstract

Biomarker-guided initiation of antibiotic therapy has been studied in four conditions: acute pancreatitis, lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI), meningitis, and sepsis in the ICU. In pancreatitis with suspected infected necrosis, initiating antibiotics best relies on fine-needle aspiration and demonstration of infected material. We suggest that PCT be measured to help predict infection; however, available data are insufficient to decide on initiating antibiotics based on PCT levels. In adult patients suspected of community-acquired LRTI, we suggest withholding antibiotic therapy when the serum PCT level is low (<0.25 ng/mL); in patients having nosocomial LRTI, data are insufficient to recommend initiating therapy based on a single PCT level or even repeated measurements. For children with suspected bacterial meningitis, we recommend using a decision rule as an aid to therapeutic decisions, such as the Bacterial Meningitis Score or the Meningitest®; a single PCT level ≥0.5 ng/mL also may be used, but false-negatives may occur. In adults with suspected bacterial meningitis, we suggest integrating serum PCT measurements in a clinical decision rule to help distinguish between viral and bacterial meningitis, using a 0.5 ng/mL threshold. For ICU patients suspected of community-acquired infection, we do not recommend using a threshold serum PCT value to help the decision to initiate antibiotic therapy; data are insufficient to recommend using PCT serum kinetics for the decision to initiate antibiotic therapy in patients suspected of ICU-acquired infection. In children, CRP can probably be used to help discontinue therapy, although the evidence is limited. In adults, antibiotic discontinuation can be based on an algorithm using repeated PCT measurements. In non-immunocompromised out- or in- patients treated for RTI, antibiotics can be discontinued if the PCT level at day 3 is < 0.25 ng/mL or has decreased by >80-90%, whether or not microbiological documentation has been obtained. For ICU patients who have nonbacteremic sepsis from a known site of infection, antibiotics can be stopped if the PCT level at day 3 is < 0.5 ng/mL or has decreased by >80% relative to the highest level recorded, irrespective of the severity of the infectious episode; in bacteremic patients, a minimal duration of therapy of 5 days is recommended.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 2 1%
Brazil 2 1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 130 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 13%
Researcher 17 13%
Other 14 10%
Student > Postgraduate 12 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 8%
Other 38 28%
Unknown 25 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 76 56%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Engineering 4 3%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 29 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 February 2014.
All research outputs
#4,602,465
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#501
of 1,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,284
of 195,823 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#5
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,074 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 195,823 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 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 58% of its contemporaries.