↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions for the eradication of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in people with cystic fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
Title
Interventions for the eradication of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in people with cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD009650.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lo, David K H, Hurley, Matthew N, Muhlebach, Marianne S, Smyth, Alan R

Abstract

Cystic fibrosis is an inherited recessive disorder of chloride transport that is characterised by recurrent and persistent pulmonary infections from resistant organisms that result in lung function deterioration and early mortality in sufferers.Meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) has emerged as, not only an important infection in long-term hospitalised patients, but also as a potentially harmful pathogen in cystic fibrosis, and has been increasing steadily in prevalence internationally. Chronic pulmonary infection with MRSA is thought to confer cystic fibrosis patients with a worse overall clinical outcome and, in particular, result in an increased rate of decline in lung function. Clear guidance for the eradication of MRSA in cystic fibrosis, supported by robust evidence from good quality trials, is urgently needed. To evaluate the effectiveness of treatment regimens designed to eradicate MRSA and to determine whether the eradication of MRSA confers better clinical and microbiological outcomes for people with cystic fibrosis. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials were identified by searching the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, PUBMED, MEDLINE, Embase, handsearching article reference lists and through contact with local and international experts in the field.Date of the last search of the Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register: 04 September 2014. Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing any combinations of topical, inhaled, oral or intravenous antimicrobials with the primary aim of eradicating MRSA compared with placebo, standard treatment or no treatment. The authors independently assessed all search results for eligibility. No eligible trials were identified for inclusion. No current published eligible trials were identified, although three ongoing clinical trials are likely to be eligible for inclusion in future updates of this review. We did not identify any randomised trials which would allow us to make any evidence-based recommendations. Although the results of several non-randomised studies would suggest that, once isolated, the eradication of MRSA is possible; whether this has a significant impact on clinical outcome is still unclear. Further research is required to guide clinical decision making in the management of MRSA infection in cystic fibrosis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 12 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 34%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 10 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 02 May 2015.
All research outputs
#12,487,846
of 14,123,042 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,531
of 10,858 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,704
of 228,765 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#235
of 239 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,123,042 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,858 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 228,765 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 239 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.