↓ Skip to main content

Piperacillin–tazobactam as alternative to carbapenems for ICU patients

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
Title
Piperacillin–tazobactam as alternative to carbapenems for ICU patients
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13613-017-0334-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benoit Pilmis, Vincent Jullien, Alexis Tabah, Jean-Ralph Zahar, Christian Brun-Buisson

Abstract

Several studies suggest that alternatives to carbapenems, and particulary beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitor combinations, can be used for therapy of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBL-PE)-related infections in non-ICU patients. Little is known concerning ICU patients in whom achieving the desired plasmatic pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) target may be difficult. Also, in vitro susceptibility to beta-lactamase inhibitors might not translate into clinical efficacy. We reviewed the recent clinical studies examining the use of BL/BLI as alternatives to carbapenems for therapy of bloodstream infection, PK/PD data and discuss potential ecological benefit from avoiding the use of carbapenems. With the lack of prospective randomized studies, treating ICU patients with ESBL-PE-related infections using piperacillin-tazobactam should be done with caution. Current data suggest that BL/BLI empirical use should be avoided for therapy of ESBL-PE-related infection. Also, definitive therapy should be reserved to patients in clinical stable condition, after microbial documentation and results of susceptibility tests. Optimization of administration and higher dosage should be used in order to reach pharmacological targets.

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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 16%
Other 8 12%
Student > Master 8 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 17 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 43%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 20 30%
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 23 August 2018.
All research outputs
#6,137,137
of 23,007,887 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#570
of 1,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,409
of 328,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#9
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,007,887 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,052 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.8. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 328,166 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.