↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Rifabutin for treating pulmonary tuberculosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 Wikipedia page


57 Dimensions

Readers on

104 Mendeley
Rifabutin for treating pulmonary tuberculosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005159.pub2
Pubmed ID

Geraint R Davies, Stefania Cerri, Luca Richeldi


Rifamycins are an essential component of modern short-course regimens for treating tuberculosis. Rifabutin has favourable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties and is less prone to drug-drug interactions than rifampicin. It could contribute to shortening of therapy or simplify treatment in HIV-positive people who also need antiretroviral drugs. To compare combination drug regimens containing rifabutin with those containing rifampicin for treating pulmonary tuberculosis We searched Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register (January 2007), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2007), EMBASE (1974 to January 2007), and LILACS (1982 to January 2007). We also searched the Indian Journal of Tuberculosis (1983 to 2006), conference abstracts, reference lists, and unpublished data on file at Pfizer Inc. Randomized and quasi-randomized trials including participants with sputum smear and/or culture-confirmed tuberculosis that compared a rifabutin-containing with an otherwise identical rifampicin-containing regimen. Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and methodological quality, and extracted data. Dichotomous data were analysed and combined using relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a fixed-effect model. Subgroup analyses were carried out according to rifabutin dose. Five trials with a total of 924 participants met the inclusion criteria; 5% of participants were HIV positive. Only one small trial was methodologically adequate. The two largest trials (818 participants) had unclear allocation concealment and included < 90% of randomized participants in the analysis. There was no statistically significant difference in between the regimens for cure (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.04; 553 participants, 2 trials) or relapse (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.45 to 3.35; 448 participants, 2 trials). The number of adverse events was not significantly different (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.31; 714 participants, 3 trials), though the RR increased with rifabutin dose: 150 mg (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.12; 264 participants, 2 trials); and 300 mg (RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.94 to 3.34; 450 participants, 2 trials). However, lack of dose adjustment by weight in the relevant trials complicates interpretation of this relationship. The replacement of rifampicin by rifabutin for first-line treatment of tuberculosis is not supported by the current evidence. HIV-positive people with tuberculosis, the group most likely to benefit from the rifabutin use, are under-represented in trials to date, and further trials in this group would be useful.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Unknown 101 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 13%
Other 8 8%
Student > Postgraduate 8 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Other 26 25%
Unknown 22 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 39%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 26 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 05 April 2018.
All research outputs
of 14,461,407 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 10,977 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 277,195 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 200 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,461,407 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,977 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 277,195 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 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 200 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.