↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Fluid therapy for acute bacterial meningitis

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
235 Mendeley
Title
Fluid therapy for acute bacterial meningitis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004786.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ian K Maconochie, Soumyadeep Bhaumik

Abstract

Acute bacterial meningitis remains a disease with high mortality and morbidity rates. However, with prompt and adequate antimicrobial and supportive treatment, the chances for survival have improved, especially among infants and children. Careful management of fluid and electrolyte balance is an important supportive therapy. Both over- and under-hydration are associated with adverse outcomes. This is the latest update of a review first published in 2005 and updated in 2008 and 2014. To evaluate treatment of acute bacterial meningitis with differing volumes of initial fluid administration (up to 72 hours after first presentation) and the effects on death and neurological sequelae. For this 2016 update we searched the following databases up to March 2016: the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Global Health, and Web of Science. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of differing volumes of fluid given in the initial management of bacterial meningitis were eligible for inclusion. All four of the original review authors extracted data and assessed trials for quality in the first publication of this review (one author, ROW, has passed away since the original review; see Acknowledgements). The current authors combined data for meta-analysis using risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data or mean difference (MD) for continuous data. We used a fixed-effect statistical model. We assessed the overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. We included three trials with a total of 420 children; there were no trials in adult populations. The largest of the three trials was conducted in settings with high mortality rates and was judged to have low risk of bias for all domains, except performance bias which was high risk. The other two smaller trials were not of high quality.The meta-analysis found no significant difference between the maintenance-fluid and restricted-fluid groups in number of deaths (RR 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 1.27; 407 participants; low quality of evidence) or acute severe neurological sequelae (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.08; 407 participants; low quality of evidence). However, when neurological sequelae were defined further, there was a statistically significant difference in favour of the maintenance-fluid group for spasticity (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.93; 357 participants); and seizures at both 72 hours (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.83; 357 participants) and 14 days (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.88; 357 participants). There was very low quality of evidence favouring maintenance fluid over restrictive fluid for chronic severe neurological sequelae at three months follow-up (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.89; 351 participants). The quality of evidence regarding fluid therapy in children with acute bacterial meningitis is low to very low and more RCTs need to be conducted. There is insufficient evidence to guide practice as to whether maintenance fluids should be chosen over restricted fluids in the treatment of acute bacterial meningitis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 235 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 232 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 35 15%
Student > Master 31 13%
Student > Postgraduate 21 9%
Other 20 9%
Researcher 20 9%
Other 55 23%
Unknown 53 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 111 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 3%
Psychology 5 2%
Unspecified 5 2%
Other 22 9%
Unknown 61 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 30 August 2018.
All research outputs
#2,294,414
of 19,864,708 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,952
of 11,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,131
of 405,816 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#77
of 154 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,864,708 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,985 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 405,816 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 154 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.