↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Antibiotic therapy for pelvic inflammatory disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
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 (82nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
188 Mendeley
Title
Antibiotic therapy for pelvic inflammatory disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010285.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ricardo F Savaris, Daniele G Fuhrich, Rui V Duarte, Sebastian Franik, Jonathan Ross

Abstract

Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) is an infection that affects 4% to 12% of young women, and is one of the most common causes of morbidity in this age group. The main intervention for acute PID is the use of broad-spectrum antibiotics which cover Chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, and anaerobic bacteria, administered intravenously, intramuscularly, or orally. In this review, we assessed the optimal treatment regimen for PID. To assess the effectiveness and safety of antibiotic regimens used to treat pelvic inflammatory disease. We searched the Cochrane Sexually Transmitted Infections Review Group's Specialized Register, which included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from 1944 to 2016, located through electronic searching and handsearching; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid platform (1991 to July 2016); MEDLINE (1946 to July 2016); Embase (1947 to July 2016); LILACS, iAHx interface (1982 to July 2016); World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (July 2016); Web of Science (2001 to July 2016); OpenGrey (1990, 1992, 1995, 1996, and 1997); and abstracts in selected publications. We included RCTs comparing the use of antibiotics with placebo or other antibiotics for the treatment of PID in women of reproductive age, either as inpatient or outpatient treatment. We limited our review to comparison of drugs in current use that are recommended for consideration by the 2015 US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for treatment of PID. At least two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We contacted investigators to obtain missing information. We resolved disagreements by consensus or by consulting a fourth review author if necessary. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria, classifying it as high, moderate, low, or very low. We calculated Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios (RR), using either random-effects or fixed-effect models and number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome or for an additional harmful outcome, with their 95% confidence interval (CI), to measure the effect of the treatments. We conducted sensitivity analyses limited to studies at low risk of bias, for comparisons where such studies were available. We included 37 RCTs (6348 women). The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to high, the main limitations being serious risk of bias (due to poor reporting of study methods and lack of blinding), serious inconsistency, and serious imprecision. Azithromycin versus doxycyclineThere was no clear evidence of a difference between the two drugs in rates of cure for mild-moderate PID (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.55, I(2) = 72%, 2 RCTs, 243 women, very low-quality evidence), severe PID (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.05, 1 RCT, 309 women, low-quality evidence), or adverse effects leading to discontinuation of treatment (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.34, 3 RCTs, 552 women, I(2) = 0%, low-quality evidence). In a sensitivity analysis limited to a single study at low risk of bias, azithromycin was superior to doxycycline in achieving cure in mild-moderate PID (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.67, 133 women, moderate-quality evidence). Quinolone versus cephalosporinThere was no clear evidence of a difference between the two drugs in rates of cure for mild-moderate PID (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.10, 3 RCTs, 459 women, I(2) = 5%, low-quality evidence), severe PID (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.23, 2 RCTs, 313 women, I(2) = 7%, low-quality evidence), or adverse effects leading to discontinuation of treatment (RR 2.24, 95% CI 0.52 to 9.72, 5 RCTs, 772 women, I(2) = 0%, very low-quality evidence). Nitroimidazole versus no use of nitroimidazoleThere was no conclusive evidence of a difference between the nitroimidazoles (metronidazole) group and the group receiving other drugs with activity over anaerobes (e.g. amoxicillin-clavulanate) in rates of cure for mild-moderate PID (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.10, 5 RCTs, 2427 women, I(2) = 60%, moderate-quality evidence), severe PID (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.01, 11 RCTs, 1383 women, I(2) = 0%, moderate-quality evidence), or adverse effects leading to discontinuation of treatment (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.59; participants = 3788; studies = 16; I(2) = 0% , low-quality evidence). In a sensitivity analysis limited to studies at low risk of bias, findings did not differ substantially from the main analysis (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.15, 2 RCTs, 1201 women, I(2) = 32%, high-quality evidence). Clindamycin plus aminoglycoside versus quinoloneThere was no evidence of a difference between the two groups in rates of cure for mild-moderate PID (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.13, 1 RCT, 25 women, very low-quality evidence), severe PID (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.19, 2 studies, 151 women, I(2) = 0%, low-quality evidence), or adverse effects leading to discontinuation of treatment (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.72, 3 RCTs, 163 women, very low-quality evidence). Clindamycin plus aminoglycoside versus cephalosporinThere was no clear evidence of a difference between the two groups in rates of cure for mild-moderate PID (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.09, 2 RCTs, 150 women, I(2) = 0%, low-quality evidence), severe PID (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.06, 10 RCTs, 959 women, I(2) = 21%, moderate-quality evidence), or adverse effects leading to discontinuation of treatment (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.18 to 3.42, 10 RCTs, 1172 women, I(2) = 0%, very low-quality evidence). We found no conclusive evidence that one regimen of antibiotics was safer or more effective than any other for the cure of PID, and there was no clear evidence for the use of nitroimidazoles (metronidazole) compared to use of other drugs with activity over anaerobes. Moderate-quality evidence from a single study at low risk of bias suggested that a macrolide (azithromycin) may be more effective than a tetracycline (doxycycline) for curing mild-moderate PID. Our review considered only the drugs that are currently used and mentioned by the CDC.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 188 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Qatar 1 <1%
Unknown 187 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 19%
Student > Bachelor 28 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 10%
Researcher 15 8%
Student > Postgraduate 12 6%
Other 36 19%
Unknown 42 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 75 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 4%
Psychology 8 4%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Other 20 11%
Unknown 47 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 04 September 2019.
All research outputs
#1,866,584
of 16,017,408 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,535
of 11,356 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,699
of 268,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#107
of 228 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,017,408 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 11,356 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 268,232 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 228 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 53% of its contemporaries.