↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Prophylactic antibiotics for preventing pneumococcal infection in children with sickle cell disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 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 (83rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
20 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
143 Mendeley
Title
Prophylactic antibiotics for preventing pneumococcal infection in children with sickle cell disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003427.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Angela E Rankine‐Mullings, Shirley Owusu‐Ofori

Abstract

Persons with sickle cell disease (SCD) are particularly susceptible to infection. Infants and very young children are especially vulnerable. The 'Co-operative Study of Sickle Cell Disease' observed an incidence rate for pneumococcal septicaemia of 10 per 100 person years in children under the age of three years. Vaccines, including customary pneumococcal vaccines, may be of limited use in this age group. Therefore, prophylactic penicillin regimens may be advisable for this population. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2002, and previously updated, most recently in 2014. To assess the effects of antibiotic prophylaxis against pneumococcus in children with SCD in relation to:1. incidence of infection;2. mortality;3. drug-related adverse events (as reported in the included studies) to the individual and the community;4. the impact of discontinuing at various ages on incidence of infection and mortality. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, which is comprised of references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and also two clinical trials registries: ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Registry Platform. Additionally, we carried out handsearching of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.Date of the most recent search: 19 December 2016. All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing prophylactic antibiotics to prevent pneumococcal infection in children with SCD with placebo, no treatment or a comparator drug. Both authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. The authors used the GRADE criteria to assess the quality of the evidence. Five trials were identified by the searches, of which three trials (880 children randomised) met the inclusion criteria. All of the included trials showed a reduced incidence of infection in children with SCD (SS or Sβ0Thal) receiving prophylactic penicillin. In trials which investigated initiation of penicillin on risk of pneumococcal infection, the odds ratio was 0.37 (95% confidence interval 0.16 to 0.86) (two trials, 457 children) (low-quality evidence), while for withdrawal the odds ratio was 0.49 (95% confidence interval 0.09 to 2.71) (one trial, 400 children) (low-quality evidence). Adverse drug effects were rare and minor. Rates of pneumococcal infection were found to be relatively low in children over the age of five.Overall, the quality of the evidence for all outcomes was judged to be low. The results from the risk of bias assessment undertaken identified two domains in which the risk of bias was considered to be high, these were incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) (two trials) and allocation concealment (selection bias) (one trial). Domains considered to have a low risk of bias for all three trials were selective reporting (reporting bias) and blinding (performance and detection bias). The evidence examined suggests that prophylactic penicillin significantly reduces risk of pneumococcal infection in children with homozygous SCD, and is associated with minimal adverse reactions. Further research may help to determine the ideal age to safely withdraw penicillin.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users 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 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 143 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 17%
Student > Bachelor 19 13%
Researcher 12 8%
Other 11 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 8%
Other 27 19%
Unknown 38 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 6%
Social Sciences 8 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Other 17 12%
Unknown 48 34%
Attention Score in Context

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 01 March 2018.
All research outputs
#3,034,410
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,693
of 12,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,856
of 333,927 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#132
of 189 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 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 12,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 333,927 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 189 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.