↓ Skip to main content

Katayama syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Lancet Infectious Diseases, March 2007
Altmetric Badge
123

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
11 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
58 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
87 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
156 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Katayama syndrome
Published in
Lancet Infectious Diseases, March 2007
DOI 10.1016/s1473-3099(17)30235-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Allen G Ross, David Vickers, G Richard Olds, Syed M Shah, Donald P McManus

Abstract

Clostridium difficile infection is the most common health-care-associated infection in the USA. We assessed the safety and efficacy of ridinilazole versus vancomycin for treatment of C difficile infection. We did a phase 2, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, non-inferiority study. Participants with signs and symptoms of C difficile infection and a positive diagnostic test result were recruited from 33 centres in the USA and Canada and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral ridinilazole (200 mg every 12 h) or oral vancomycin (125 mg every 6 h) for 10 days. The primary endpoint was achievement of a sustained clinical response, defined as clinical cure at the end of treatment and no recurrence within 30 days, which was used to establish non-inferiority (15% margin) of ridinilazole versus vancomycin. The primary efficacy analysis was done on a modified intention-to-treat population comprising all individuals with C difficile infection confirmed by the presence of free toxin in stool who were randomly assigned to receive one or more doses of the study drug. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02092935. Between June 26, 2014, and August 31, 2015, 100 patients were recruited; 50 were randomly assigned to receive ridinilazole and 50 to vancomycin. 16 patients did not complete the study, and 11 discontinued treatment early. The primary efficacy analysis included 69 patients (n=36 in the ridinilazole group; n=33 in the vancomycin group). 24 of 36 (66·7%) patients in the ridinilazole group versus 14 of 33 (42·4%) of those in the vancomycin group had a sustained clinical response (treatment difference 21·1%, 90% CI 3·1-39·1, p=0·0004), establishing the non-inferiority of ridinilazole and also showing statistical superiority at the 10% level. Ridinilazole was well tolerated, with an adverse event profile similar to that of vancomycin: 82% (41 of 50) of participants reported adverse events in the ridinilazole group and 80% (40 of 50) in the vancomycin group. There were no adverse events related to ridinilazole that led to discontinuation. Ridinilazole is a targeted-spectrum antimicrobial that shows potential in treatment of initial C difficile infection and in providing sustained benefit through reduction in disease recurrence. Further clinical development is warranted. Wellcome Trust and Summit Therapeutics.

Twitter Demographics

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 58 tweeters 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 156 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 154 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 30 19%
Student > Master 18 12%
Other 17 11%
Student > Bachelor 16 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 8%
Other 28 18%
Unknown 35 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 31%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 4%
Other 29 19%
Unknown 40 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 123. 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 January 2022.
All research outputs
#320,074
of 24,493,053 outputs
Outputs from Lancet Infectious Diseases
#615
of 5,837 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#458
of 79,501 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lancet Infectious Diseases
#2
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,493,053 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,837 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 92.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 79,501 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.