↓ 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 (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
123 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
271 Mendeley
Title
Ivermectin versus albendazole or thiabendazole for Strongyloides stercoralis 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 Jr, 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 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 271 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 269 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 45 17%
Student > Bachelor 42 15%
Researcher 24 9%
Other 24 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 7%
Other 54 20%
Unknown 62 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 91 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 9 3%
Other 44 16%
Unknown 71 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 03 September 2021.
All research outputs
#1,561,092
of 18,846,561 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,792
of 11,872 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,245
of 355,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#81
of 201 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,846,561 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 11,872 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 355,873 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 201 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 59% of its contemporaries.