↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Third generation cephalosporins versus conventional antibiotics for treating acute bacterial meningitis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
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 (80th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 tweeters
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
184 Mendeley
Title
Third generation cephalosporins versus conventional antibiotics for treating acute bacterial meningitis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001832.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kameshwar Prasad, Amit Kumar, Tarun Singhal, Praveen Kumar Gupta

Abstract

Antibiotic therapy for suspected acute bacterial meningitis (ABM) needs to be started immediately, even before the results of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) culture and antibiotic sensitivity are available. Immediate commencement of effective treatment using the intravenous route may reduce death and disability. Although bacterial meningitis guidelines advise the use of third generation cephalosporins, these drugs are often not available in hospitals in low income countries. The objective of this review was to compare the effectiveness and safety of third generation cephalosporins and conventional treatment with penicillin or ampicillin-chloramphenicol in patients with community-acquired ABM. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 1) which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Trials Register, MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2007), and EMBASE (January 1974 to March 2007). We also searched the reference list of review articles and book chapters, and contacted experts for any unpublished trials. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ceftriaxone or cefotaxime with conventional antibiotics as empirical therapy for acute bacterial meningitis. Two review authors independently applied the study selection criteria, assessed methodological quality, and extracted data. Nineteen trials that involved 1496 patients were included in the analysis. There was no heterogeneity of results among the studies in any outcome except diarrhoea. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in the risk of death (risk difference (RD) 0%; 95% confidence interval (CI) -3% to 2%), risk of deafness (RD -4%; 95% CI -9% to 1%), or risk of treatment failure (RD -1%; 95% CI -4% to 2%). However, there were significantly decreased risks of culture positivity of CSF after 10 to 48 hours (RD -6%; 95% CI -11% to 0%) and statistically significant increases in the risk of diarrhoea between the groups (RD 8%; 95% CI 3% to 13%) with the third generation cephalosporins. The risk of neutropaenia and skin rash were not significantly different between the two groups. However, all the studies were conducted in the 1980s except three, which were reported in 1993, 1996, and 2005. The review shows no clinically important difference between ceftriaxone or cefotaxime and conventional antibiotics. In situations where availability or affordability is an issue, third generation cephalosporins, ampicillin-chloramphenicol combination, or chloramphenicol alone may be used as alternatives. The antimicrobial resistance pattern against various antibiotics needs to be closely monitored in low to middle income countries as well as high income countries.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 184 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Colombia 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 176 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 15%
Student > Postgraduate 25 14%
Student > Master 25 14%
Student > Bachelor 25 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 9%
Other 38 21%
Unknown 28 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 94 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Other 24 13%
Unknown 39 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 17 January 2018.
All research outputs
#3,301,913
of 17,363,630 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,918
of 11,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,875
of 178,247 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#51
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,363,630 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 178,247 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 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 51% of its contemporaries.