| Title |
Outcomes associated with conventional versus lipid-based formulations of amphotericin B in propensity-matched groups
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ceor.s46834 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rebecca S Campbell, Paresh Chaudhari, Harlen D Hays, Robert J Taylor, Brian H Nathanson, Samuel A Bozzette, David L Horn |
| Abstract |
Lipid-based formulations of amphotericin B (LF-AMB) are indicated for treatment of invasive fungal infections in patients intolerant to conventional amphotericin B (CAB) or with refractory infections. Physicians still may choose to administer CAB to such patients. We described the use of CAB and LF-AMB in this population and quantified differences in post-amphotericin B length of stay (LOS) among survivors and hospital mortality in matched patients. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 10 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 40% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 40% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 1 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 40% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 10% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 2 | 20% |
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 23 October 2013.
All research outputs
#20,011,485
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#395
of 525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,085
of 220,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#11
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 220,037 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.