↓ Skip to main content

Combination antibiotic therapy for community-acquired pneumonia

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Intensive Care, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
212 Mendeley
Title
Combination antibiotic therapy for community-acquired pneumonia
Published in
Annals of Intensive Care, November 2011
DOI 10.1186/2110-5820-1-48
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jesus Caballero, Jordi Rello

Abstract

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a common and potentially serious illness that is associated with morbidity and mortality. Although medical care has improved during the past decades, it is still potentially lethal. Streptococcus pneumoniae is the most frequent microorganism isolated. Treatment includes mandatory antibiotic therapy and organ support as needed. There are several antibiotic therapy regimens that include β-lactams or macrolides or fluoroquinolones alone or in combination. Combination antibiotic therapy achieves a better outcome compared with monotherapy and it should be given in the following subset of patients with CAP: outpatients with comorbidities and previous antibiotic therapy, nursing home patients with CAP, hospitalized patients with severe CAP, bacteremic pneumococcal CAP, presence of shock, and necessity of mechanical ventilation. Better outcome is associated with combination therapy that includes a macrolide for wide coverage of atypical pneumonia, polymicrobial pneumonia, or resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae. Macrolides have shown different properties other than antimicrobial activity, such as anti-inflammatory properties. Although this evidence comes from observational, most of them retrospective and nonblinded studies, the findings are consistent. Ideally, a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial should be performed to confirm these findings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 212 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Greece 1 <1%
Unknown 207 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 55 26%
Student > Master 23 11%
Student > Postgraduate 21 10%
Researcher 15 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 7%
Other 44 21%
Unknown 39 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 84 40%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 43 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 3%
Other 16 8%
Unknown 42 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 31 May 2021.
All research outputs
#13,367,517
of 22,678,224 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#697
of 1,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,269
of 239,517 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#12
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,678,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,033 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.5. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 239,517 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.