↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Home versus hospital intravenous antibiotic therapy for cystic fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
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 (91st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
293 Mendeley
Title
Home versus hospital intravenous antibiotic therapy for cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001917.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Albert Balaguer, Javier González de Dios

Abstract

Recurrent endobronchial infection in cystic fibrosis requires treatment with intravenous antibiotics for several weeks usually in hospital, affecting health costs and quality of life for patients and their families. This is an update of a previously published review. To determine whether home intravenous antibiotic therapy in cystic fibrosis is as effective as inpatient intravenous antibiotic therapy and if it is preferred by individuals or families or both. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.Most recent search of the Group's Trials Register: 23 November 2015. Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled studies of intravenous antibiotic treatment for adults and children with cystic fibrosis at home compared to in hospital. The authors independently selected studies for inclusion in the review, assessed methodological quality of each study and extracted data using a standardised form. Eighteen studies were identified by the searches. Only one study could be included which reported results from 17 participants aged 10 to 41 years with an infective exacerbation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. All their 31 admissions (18 hospital and 13 at home after two to four days of hospital treatment) were analysed as independent events. Outcomes were measured at 0, 10 and 21 days after initiation of treatment. Home participants underwent fewer investigations than hospital participants (P < 0.002) and general activity was higher in the home group. No significant differences were found for clinical outcomes, adverse events, complications or change of intravenous lines,or time to next admission. Home participants received less low-dose home maintenance antibiotic.Quality of life measures showed no significant differences for dyspnoea and emotional state, but fatigue and mastery were worse for home participants, possibly due to a higher general activity and need of support. Personal, family, sleeping and eating disruptions were less important for home than hospital admissions.Home therapy was cheaper for families and the hospital. Indirect costs were not determined. Current evidence is restricted to a single randomized clinical trial. It suggests that, in the short term, home therapy does not harm individuals, entails fewer investigations, reduces social disruptions and can be cost-effective. There were both advantages and disadvantages in terms of quality of life. The decision to attempt home treatment should be based on the individual situation and appropriate local resources. More research is urgently required.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 293 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 291 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 41 14%
Student > Bachelor 35 12%
Researcher 28 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 7%
Other 18 6%
Other 63 22%
Unknown 87 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 82 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 12%
Psychology 15 5%
Social Sciences 8 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 2%
Other 45 15%
Unknown 101 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 08 May 2016.
All research outputs
#2,150,789
of 25,390,203 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,547
of 12,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,905
of 396,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#108
of 251 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,390,203 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,712 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 396,909 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 251 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 56% of its contemporaries.