↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Ivermectin versus albendazole or thiabendazole for Strongyloides stercoralis infection

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
200 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
390 Mendeley
Title
Ivermectin versus albendazole or thiabendazole for <i>Strongyloides stercoralis</i> infection
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007745.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cesar Henriquez‐Camacho, Eduardo Gotuzzo, Juan Echevarria, A Clinton White, Angelica Terashima, Frine Samalvides, José A Pérez‐Molina, Maria N Plana

Abstract

Strongyloidiasis is a gut infection with Strongyloides stercoralis which is common world wide. Chronic infection usually causes a skin rash, vomiting, diarrhoea or constipation, and respiratory problems, and it can be fatal in people with immune deficiency. It may be treated with ivermectin or albendazole or thiabendazole. To assess the effects of ivermectin versus benzimidazoles (albendazole and thiabendazole) for treating chronic strongyloides infection. We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register (24 August 2015); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), published in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (January 1966 to August 2015); EMBASE (January 1980 to August 2015); LILACS (August 2015); and reference lists of articles. We also searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) using 'strongyloid*' as a search term, reference lists, and conference abstracts. Randomized controlled trials of ivermectin versus albendazole or thiabendazole for treating chronic strongyloides infection. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the included trials. We used risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and fixed- or random-effects models. We pooled adverse event data if the trials were sufficiently similar in their adverse event definitions. We included seven trials, enrolling 1147 participants, conducted between 1994 and 2011 in different locations (Africa, Southeast Asia, America and Europe).In trials comparing ivermectin with albendazole, parasitological cure was higher with ivermectin (RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.55 to 2.08; 478 participants, four trials, moderate quality evidence). There were no statistically significant differences in adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.09; 518 participants, four trials, low quality evidence).In trials comparing ivermectin with thiabendazole, there was little or no difference in parasitological cure (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.20; 467 participants, three trials, low quality evidence). However, adverse events were less common with ivermectin (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.50; 507 participants; three trials, moderate quality evidence).In trials comparing different dosages of ivermectin, taking a second dose of 200 μg/kg of ivermectin was not associated with higher cure in a small subgroup of participants (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.11; 94 participants, two trials).Dizziness, nausea, and disorientation were commonly reported in all drug groups. There were no reports of serious adverse events or death. Ivermectin results in more people cured than albendazole, and is at least as well tolerated. In trials of ivermectin with thiabendazole, parasitological cure is similar but there are more adverse events with thiabendazole.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 390 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 388 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 53 14%
Student > Bachelor 49 13%
Researcher 30 8%
Other 26 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 5%
Other 70 18%
Unknown 141 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 107 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 37 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 10 3%
Other 56 14%
Unknown 152 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 28 April 2024.
All research outputs
#1,859,636
of 26,106,397 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,819
of 13,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,995
of 405,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#85
of 254 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,106,397 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,186 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 405,006 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 254 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 66% of its contemporaries.