↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Renal Dosing of Antibiotics: Are We Jumping the Gun?

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Infectious Diseases, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
406 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
86 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
125 Mendeley
Title
Renal Dosing of Antibiotics: Are We Jumping the Gun?
Published in
Clinical Infectious Diseases, September 2018
DOI 10.1093/cid/ciy790
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ryan L Crass, Keith A Rodvold, Bruce A Mueller, Manjunath P Pai

Abstract

Antibiotic renal dose adjustments are determined in subjects with stable chronic kidney disease and may not translate to patients in late phase trials and practice. Ceftolozane/tazobactam, ceftazidime/avibactam, and telavancin all carry precautionary statements for reduced clinical response in patients with baseline creatinine clearance 30 - 50 mL/min, potentially due to unnecessary dose reduction in the setting of acute kidney injury (AKI). In this review, we discuss the regulatory landscape for antibiotics eliminated by the kidney and highlight the importance of the first 48 hours of therapy. Using a clinical database, we identify AKI on admission in a substantial proportion of patients with pneumonia (27.1%), intra-abdominal (19.5%), urinary tract (20.0%), or skin and skin structure infections (9.7%) that resolved by 48 hours in 57.2% of cases. We suggest that deferred renal dose reduction of wide therapeutic index antibiotics could improve outcomes in patients with infectious diseases.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 406 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 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 125 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 23 18%
Researcher 16 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Student > Postgraduate 10 8%
Student > Master 10 8%
Other 30 24%
Unknown 26 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 35%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 18 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 18 14%
Unknown 32 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 277. 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 2023.
All research outputs
#130,084
of 25,562,515 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Infectious Diseases
#340
of 16,904 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,565
of 348,496 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Infectious Diseases
#3
of 222 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,562,515 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,904 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 348,496 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 222 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.