↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Article Metrics

Management of Adults With Hospital-acquired and Ventilator-associated Pneumonia: 2016 Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Infectious Diseases, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#21 of 9,706)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
393 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
810 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
Title
Management of Adults With Hospital-acquired and Ventilator-associated Pneumonia: 2016 Clinical Practice Guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society
Published in
Clinical Infectious Diseases, July 2016
DOI 10.1093/cid/ciw353
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andre C. Kalil, Mark L. Metersky, Michael Klompas, John Muscedere, Daniel A. Sweeney, Lucy B. Palmer, Lena M. Napolitano, Naomi P. O'Grady, John G. Bartlett, Jordi Carratalà, Ali A. El Solh, Santiago Ewig, Paul D. Fey, Thomas M. File, Marcos I. Restrepo, Jason A. Roberts, Grant W. Waterer, Peggy Cruse, Shandra L. Knight, Jan L. Brozek

Abstract

It is important to realize that guidelines cannot always account for individual variation among patients. They are not intended to supplant physician judgment with respect to particular patients or special clinical situations. IDSA considers adherence to these guidelines to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in the light of each patient's individual circumstances.These guidelines are intended for use by healthcare professionals who care for patients at risk for hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), including specialists in infectious diseases, pulmonary diseases, critical care, and surgeons, anesthesiologists, hospitalists, and any clinicians and healthcare providers caring for hospitalized patients with nosocomial pneumonia. The panel's recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of HAP and VAP are based upon evidence derived from topic-specific systematic literature reviews.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 332 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 810 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Japan 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 794 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 137 17%
Student > Postgraduate 118 15%
Researcher 102 13%
Student > Master 95 12%
Student > Bachelor 94 12%
Other 264 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 519 64%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 100 12%
Unspecified 74 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 43 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 3%
Other 49 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 412. 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 25 September 2018.
All research outputs
#19,307
of 11,857,577 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Infectious Diseases
#21
of 9,706 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,161
of 266,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Infectious Diseases
#2
of 151 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,857,577 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 9,706 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 266,574 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 151 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 98% of its contemporaries.