↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Optimizing antibiotic selection in treating COPD exacerbations

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, March 2008
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
Title
Optimizing antibiotic selection in treating COPD exacerbations
Published in
International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, March 2008
DOI 10.2147/copd.s1089
Pubmed ID
Authors

Attiya Siddiqi, Sanjay Sethi

Abstract

Our understanding of the etiology, pathogenesis and consequences of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has increased substantially in the last decade. Several new lines of evidence demonstrate that bacterial isolation from sputum during acute exacerbation in many instances reflects a cause-effect relationship. Placebo-controlled antibiotic trials in exacerbations of COPD demonstrate significant clinical benefits of antibiotic treatment in moderate and severe episodes. However, in the multitude of antibiotic comparison trials, the choice of antibiotics does not appear to affect the clinical outcome, which can be explained by several methodological limitations of these trials. Recently, comparison trials with nontraditional end-points have shown differences among antibiotics in the treatment of exacerbations of COPD. Observational studies that have examined clinical outcome of exacerbations have repeatedly demonstrated certain clinical characteristics to be associated with treatment failure or early relapse. Optimal antibiotic selection for exacerbations has therefore incorporated quantifying the risk for a poor outcome of the exacerbation and choosing antibiotics differently for low risk and high risk patients, reserving the broader spectrum drugs for the high risk patients. Though improved outcomes in exacerbations with antibiotic choice based on such risk stratification has not yet been demonstrated in prospective controlled trials, this approach takes into account concerns of disease heterogeneity, antibiotic resistance and judicious antibiotic use in exacerbations.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Tunisia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Greece 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Philippines 1 <1%
Unknown 110 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 20 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 16%
Student > Master 13 11%
Researcher 10 9%
Other 6 5%
Other 21 18%
Unknown 28 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 34%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 16 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 35 30%
Attention Score in Context

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 01 March 2015.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#1,731
of 2,577 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,170
of 95,556 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
#7
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,577 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 95,556 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.