| Title |
Role of biomarkers in the management of antibiotic therapy: an expert panel review: I – currently available biomarkers for clinical use in acute infections
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Intensive Care, July 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2110-5820-3-22 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anne-Marie Dupuy, François Philippart, Yves Péan, Sigismond Lasocki, Pierre-Emmanuel Charles, Martin Chalumeau, Yann-Eric Claessens, Jean-Pierre Quenot, Christele Gras-Le Guen, Stéphanie Ruiz, Charles-Edouard Luyt, Nicolas Roche, Jean-Paul Stahl, Jean-Pierre Bedos, Jérôme Pugin, Rémy Gauzit, Benoit Misset, Christian Brun-Buisson, for the Maurice Rapin Institute Biomarkers Group |
| Abstract |
In the context of worldwide increasing antimicrobial resistance, good antimicrobial prescribing in more needed than ever; unfortunately, information available to clinicians often are insufficient to rely on. Biomarkers might provide help for decision-making and improve antibiotic management. The purpose of this expert panel review was to examine currently available literature on the potential role of biomarkers to improve antimicrobial prescribing, by answering three questions: 1) Which are the biomarkers available for this purpose?; 2) What is their potential role in the initiation of antibiotic therapy?; and 3) What is their role in the decision to stop antibiotic therapy? To answer these questions, studies reviewed were limited to recent clinical studies (<15 years), involving a substantial number of patients (>50) and restricted to controlled trials and meta-analyses for answering questions 2 and 3. With regard to the first question concerning routinely available biomarkers, which might be useful for antibiotic management of acute infections, these are currently limited to C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT). Other promising biomarkers that may prove useful in the near future but need to undergo more extensive clinical testing include sTREM-1, suPAR, ProADM, and Presepsin. New approaches to biomarkers of infections include point-of-care testing and genomics. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Kazakhstan | 1 | 14% |
| Mexico | 1 | 14% |
| Kuwait | 1 | 14% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| France | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 2 | 29% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 71% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 196 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2 | 1% |
| Hungary | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Egypt | 1 | <1% |
| Iceland | 1 | <1% |
| Russia | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 188 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 29 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 10% |
| Other | 18 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 15 | 8% |
| Other | 46 | 23% |
| Unknown | 44 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 95 | 48% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 11 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 10 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 14 | 7% |
| Unknown | 47 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 21 April 2021.
All research outputs
#4,123,307
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#466
of 1,074 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,369
of 195,902 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#3
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 82nd 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 56% 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 195,902 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 82% 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 done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.