| Title |
Treatment of invasive candidiasis in the elderly: a review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Interventions in Aging, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cia.s39120 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Aikaterini Flevari, Maria Theodorakopoulou, Aristea Velegraki, Apostolos Armaganidis, George Dimopoulos |
| Abstract |
Fungi are major causes of infections among immunocompromised or hospitalized patients with serious underlying diseases and comorbidities. Candida species remain the most important cause of opportunistic infections worldwide, affecting predominantly patients over 65 years old, while they are considered to be the fourth most common cause of nosocomial bloodstream infections. The rapidly growing elderly population has specific physiological characteristics, which makes it susceptible to colonization and subsequent infection due to Candida species. Comorbidities and multidrug use should be taken into account any time the therapeutic regimen is under consideration. Different classes of antifungal drugs are available for the treatment of invasive fungal infections but echinocandins, apart from their activity against resistant strains (Candida glabrata and Candida krusei), seem to be safe, with limited adverse events and minimal drug-drug interactions in comparison to the other regimens. Therefore, these agents are strongly recommended when dealing with elderly patients suffering from an invasive form of Candida infection. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 17 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 10% |
| Other | 11 | 9% |
| Other | 31 | 25% |
| Unknown | 26 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 45 | 36% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 12 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 8% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 8 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 13 | 10% |
| Unknown | 30 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 09 September 2013.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#1,550
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,166
of 212,462 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#46
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 212,462 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.