The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users 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 |
Characteristics of an ideal nebulized antibiotic for the treatment of pneumonia in the intubated patient
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Intensive Care, April 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13613-016-0140-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Matteo Bassetti, Charles-Edouard Luyt, David P. Nicolau, Jérôme Pugin |
| Abstract |
Gram-negative pneumonia in patients who are intubated and mechanically ventilated is associated with increased morbidity and mortality as well as higher healthcare costs compared with those who do not have the disease. Intravenous antibiotics are currently the standard of care for pneumonia; however, increasing rates of multidrug resistance and limited penetration of some classes of antimicrobials into the lungs reduce the effectiveness of this treatment option, and current clinical cure rates are variable, while recurrence rates remain high. Inhaled antibiotics may have the potential to improve outcomes in this patient population, but their use is currently restricted by a lack of specifically formulated solutions for inhalation and a limited number of devices designed for the nebulization of antibiotics. In this article, we review the challenges clinicians face in the treatment of pneumonia and discuss the characteristics that would constitute an ideal inhaled drug/device combination. We also review inhaled antibiotic options currently in development for the treatment of pneumonia in patients who are intubated and mechanically ventilated. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 7 | 70% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 60% |
| Scientists | 2 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 99 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 18 | 18% |
| Other | 10 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 20 | 20% |
| Unknown | 32 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 34% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 11 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 8% |
| Unknown | 33 | 33% |
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 27 November 2017.
All research outputs
#4,460,907
of 22,862,742 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#484
of 1,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,368
of 299,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#6
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,862,742 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 1,043 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.7. 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 299,111 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.