↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Duration of intravenous antibiotic therapy in people with cystic fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
Duration of intravenous antibiotic therapy in people with cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006682.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amanda Plummer, Martin Wildman, Tim Gleeson

Abstract

Respiratory disease is the major cause of mortality and morbidity in cystic fibrosis. Life expectancy of people with cystic fibrosis has increased dramatically in the last 40 years. One of the major reasons for this increase is the mounting use of antibiotics to treat chest exacerbations caused by bacterial infections. The optimal duration of intravenous antibiotic therapy is not clearly defined. Individuals usually receive intravenous antibiotics for 14 days, but treatment may range from 10 to 21 days. A shorter duration of antibiotic treatment risks inadequate clearance of infection which could lead to further lung damage. Prolonged courses of intravenous antibiotics are expensive and inconvenient and the incidence of allergic reactions to antibiotics also increases with prolonged courses. The use of aminoglycosides requires frequent monitoring to avoid some of their side effects. However, some organisms which infect people with cystic fibrosis are known to be multi-resistant to antibiotics, and may require a longer course of treatment. This is an update of previously published reviews. To assess the optimal duration of intravenous antibiotic therapy for treating chest exacerbations in people with cystic fibrosis. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearches of relevant journals, abstract books and conference proceedings.Most recent search of the Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register: 05 May 2016. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing different durations of intravenous antibiotic courses for acute respiratory exacerbations in people with CF, either with the same drugs at the same dosage, the same drugs at a different dosage or frequency or different antibiotics altogether, including studies with additional therapeutic agents. No eligible trials were identified. No eligible trials were identified. There are no clear guidelines on the optimum duration of intravenous antibiotic treatment. Duration of treatment is currently based on unit policies and response to treatment. Shorter duration of treatment should improve quality of life and compliance; result in a reduced incidence of drug reactions; and be less costly. However, this may not be sufficient to clear a chest infection and may result in an early recurrence of an exacerbation. This systematic review identifies the need for a multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing different durations of intravenous antibiotic treatment as it has important clinical and financial implications.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 47 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 25%
Student > Bachelor 8 17%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Other 3 6%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 5 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 8%
Psychology 3 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 6%
Other 11 23%
Unknown 7 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 06 September 2016.
All research outputs
#3,607,893
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,421
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,951
of 260,792 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#122
of 170 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 260,792 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 170 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.