↓ Skip to main content

Biomarker-guided antibiotic therapy in adult critically ill patients: a critical review

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, July 2012
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 (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 Mendeley
Title
Biomarker-guided antibiotic therapy in adult critically ill patients: a critical review
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, July 2012
DOI 10.1186/2110-5820-2-32
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pedro Póvoa, Jorge I F Salluh

Abstract

Biomarkers of infection, namely C-reactive protein and procalcitonin (PCT), are potentially useful in the diagnosis of infection as well as in the assessment of its response to antibiotic therapy. C-reactive protein variations overtime appears to have a good performance for the diagnosis of infection. Procalcitonin shows a better correlation with clinical severity. In addition, to overcome the worldwide problem of antibiotic overuse as well as misuse, biomarker guidance of antibiotic stewardship represents a promising new approach. In several randomized, controlled trials, including adult critically ill patients, PCT guidance was repeatedly associated with a decrease in the duration of antibiotic therapy. However, these trials present several limitations, namely high rate of patients' exclusion, high rate of algorithm overruling, long duration of antibiotic therapy in the control group, disregard the effect of renal failure on PCT level, and above all a possible higher mortality and higher late organ failure in the PCT arm. In addition, some infections (e.g., endocarditis) as well as frequent nosocomial bacteria (e.g., Pseudomonas aeruginosa) are not suitable to be assessed by PCT algorithms. Therefore, the true value of PCT-guided algorithm of antibiotic stewardship in assisting the clinical decision-making process at the bedside remains uncertain. Future studies should take into account the issues identified in the present review.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Egypt 1 <1%
Unknown 108 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 16%
Other 16 14%
Student > Bachelor 12 10%
Student > Master 12 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Other 32 28%
Unknown 15 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 66 57%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 12 10%
Unknown 19 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 26 June 2014.
All research outputs
#1,666,789
of 12,445,334 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#133
of 514 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,799
of 119,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#2
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,445,334 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 514 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 119,820 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.