| Title |
Antifungal agent utilization evaluation in hospitalized neutropenic cancer patients at a large teaching hospital
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Drug, Healthcare and Patient Safety, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/dhps.s80762 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Afsaneh Vazin, Mohammad Ali Davarpanah, Setareh Ghalesoltani |
| Abstract |
To evaluate pattern of using of three antifungal drugs: fluconazole, amphotericin B and voriconazole, at the hematology-oncology and bone marrow transplant wards of one large teaching hospital. In a prospective cross-sectional study, we evaluated the appropriateness of using antifungal drugs in patients, using Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. All the data were recorded daily by a pharmacist in a form designed by a clinical pharmacist and infectious diseases specialist, for antifungals usage, administration, and monitoring. During the study, 116 patients were enrolled. Indications of prescribing amphotericin B, fluconazole, and voriconazole were appropriate according to guidelines in 83.4%, 80.6%, and 76.9% respectively. The duration of treatments were appropriate according to guidelines in 75%, 64.5%, and 71.1% respectively. The dose of voriconazole was appropriate according to guidelines in 46.2% of patients. None of the patients received salt loading before administration of amphotericin B. The most considerable problems with the mentioned antifungals were about the indications and duration of treatment. In addition, prehydration for amphotericin B and dosage of voriconazole were not completely compatible with the mentioned guidelines. A suitable combination of controlling the use of antifungals and educational programs could be essential for improving the general process of using antifungal drugs at our hospital. |
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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 17% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 3% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 10 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 9 | 30% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 27% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 10 | 33% |
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 02 June 2015.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Drug, Healthcare and Patient Safety
#137
of 160 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,510
of 281,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug, Healthcare and Patient Safety
#6
of 7 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 160 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.5. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 281,411 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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.