↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Antibiotics for preventing suppurative complications from undifferentiated acute respiratory infections in children under five years of age

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 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 (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
163 Mendeley
Title
Antibiotics for preventing suppurative complications from undifferentiated acute respiratory infections in children under five years of age
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007880.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Márcia G Alves Galvão, Marilene Augusta Rocha Crispino Santos, Antonio JL Alves da Cunha

Abstract

Undifferentiated acute respiratory infections (ARIs) are a large and heterogeneous group of infections not clearly restricted to one specific part of the upper respiratory tract, which last for up to seven days. They are more common in pre-school children in low-income countries and are responsible for 75% of the total amount of prescribed antibiotics in high-income countries. One possible rationale for prescribing antibiotics is the wish to prevent bacterial complications. To assess the effectiveness and safety of antibiotics in preventing bacterial complications in children aged two months to 59 months with undifferentiated ARIs. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 7), which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE (1950 to August week 1, 2015) and EMBASE (1974 to August 2015). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing antibiotic prescriptions with placebo or no treatment in children aged two months to 59 months with an undifferentiated ARI for up to seven days. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted and analysed data using the standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We identified four trials involving 1314 children. Three trials investigated the use of amoxicillin/clavulanic acid to prevent otitis and one investigated ampicillin to prevent pneumonia.The use of amoxicillin/clavulanic acid compared to placebo to prevent otitis showed a risk ratio (RR) of 0.70 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 1.11, three trials, 414 selected children, moderate-quality evidence). Methods of random sequence generation and allocation concealment were not clearly stated in two trials. Performance, detection and reporting bias could not be ruled out in three trials.Ampicillin compared to supportive care (continuation of breastfeeding, clearing of the nose and paracetamol for fever control) to prevent pneumonia showed a RR of 1.05 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.49, one trial, 889 selected children, moderate-quality evidence). The trial was non-blinded. Random sequence generation and allocation concealment methods were not clearly stated, so the possibility of reporting bias could not be ruled out.Harm outcomes could not be analysed as they were expressed only in percentages.We found no studies assessing mastoiditis, quinsy, abscess, meningitis, hospital admission or death. There is insufficient evidence for antibiotic use as a means of reducing the risk of otitis or pneumonia in children up to five years of age with undifferentiated ARIs. Further high-quality research is needed to provide more definitive evidence of the effectiveness of antibiotics in this population.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 163 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 162 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 18%
Student > Bachelor 22 13%
Researcher 21 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 11%
Other 10 6%
Other 31 19%
Unknown 31 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 60 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 6%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Other 18 11%
Unknown 45 28%

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 11 November 2019.
All research outputs
#1,098,836
of 17,359,532 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,862
of 11,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,315
of 271,046 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#60
of 184 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,359,532 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 271,046 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 184 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 67% of its contemporaries.