↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Ceftobiprole for the treatment of pneumonia: a European perspective

Overview of attention for article published in Drug Design, Development and Therapy, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
Title
Ceftobiprole for the treatment of pneumonia: a European perspective
Published in
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, August 2015
DOI 10.2147/dddt.s56616
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adamantia Liapikou, Catia Cillóniz, Antonio Torres

Abstract

Ceftobiprole, a new broad spectrum, parenteral cephalosporin, exhibits potent in vitro activity against a number of Gram-positive pathogens, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Gram-negative pathogens associated with hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Ceftobiprole has demonstrated noninferiority in two large-scale pivotal studies comparing it to ceftriaxone with or without linezolid in CAP, with clinical cure rates 86.6% versus 87.4%, or ceftazidime in HAP, with clinical cure rates of 77% versus 76%, respectively. However, ceftobiprole was inferior in the subgroup of patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. Ceftobiprole has so far demonstrated a good safety profile in preliminary studies, with similar tolerability to comparators. The most commonly observed adverse events of ceftobiprole included headache and gastrointestinal upset. It is the first cephalosporin monotherapy approved in the EU for the treatment of both CAP and HAP (excluding ventilator-associated pneumonia).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 17%
Researcher 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Lecturer 5 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 13 20%
Unknown 17 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 39%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 17 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 07 January 2020.
All research outputs
#6,725,788
of 25,837,817 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#432
of 2,285 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,278
of 279,034 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#23
of 149 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,837,817 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,285 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 279,034 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 149 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.