↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Antibiotic prophylaxis for surgical site infection in people undergoing liver transplantation

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

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Antibiotic prophylaxis for surgical site infection in people undergoing liver transplantation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010164.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ricardo AMB Almeida, Claudia N Hasimoto, Anna Kim, Erica N Hasimoto, Regina El Dib

Abstract

Surgical site infection is more frequent in liver transplantation than in other types of solid organ transplantation with different antibiotics. Studies have shown that the rate of surgical site infection varies from 8.8% to 37.5% after liver transplantation. Therefore, antimicrobial prophylaxis is likely an essential tool for reducing these infections. However, the literature lacks evidence indicating the best prophylactic antibiotic regimen that can be used for liver transplantation. To assess the benefits and harms of antibiotic prophylactic regimens for surgical site infection in people undergoing liver transplantation. We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS). The most recent search was performed on 11 September 2015. All eligible randomised clinical trials comparing any antibiotic regimen versus placebo, versus no intervention or versus another antibiotic regimen for surgical site infection in liver transplant recipients, regardless of age, sex and reason for transplantation. Quasi-randomised studies and other observational studies were considered for data on harm if retrieved with search results for randomised clinical trials. Two review authors selected relevant trials, assessed risk of bias of studies and extracted data. The electronic search identified 786 publications after removal of duplicates. From this search, only one seemingly randomised clinical trial, published in abstract form, fulfilled the inclusion criteria of this review. This trial was conducted at Shiraz Transplant Centre, Shiraz, Iran, where investigators randomly assigned a total of 180 consecutive liver transplant recipients. We judged the overall risk of bias of the trial published in abstract form as high. Researchers reported no numerical data but mentioned that 163 participants met the inclusion criteria after randomisation, and hence were included in the analyses. Most probably, the 17 excluded participants were high-risk liver transplant recipients. Trial authors concluded that they could find no differences between the two antibiotic regimens - ceftriaxone plus metronidazole versus ampicillin-sulbactam plus ceftizoxime - when given to liver transplant recipients. Review authors could not reconfirm the analyses because, as it has been mentioned, trial authors provided no trial data for analyses. Benefits and harms of antibiotic prophylactic regimens for surgical site infection in liver transplantation remain unclear. Additional well-conducted randomised clinical trials adhering to SPIRIT (Spirit Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) guidelines are needed to determine the exact role of antibiotic prophylactic regimens in patients undergoing liver transplantation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 104 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 14%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Researcher 9 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Student > Postgraduate 7 7%
Other 23 22%
Unknown 32 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 36 34%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 29 April 2016.
All research outputs
#6,788,927
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,418
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,150
of 345,346 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#175
of 220 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 345,346 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 220 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.