↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Antibiotics versus no treatment for toxoplasma retinochoroiditis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 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 (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 news outlet
7 X users
1 Facebook page
5 Wikipedia pages


37 Dimensions

Readers on

201 Mendeley
Antibiotics versus no treatment for toxoplasma retinochoroiditis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002218.pub2
Pubmed ID

Eli Pradhan, Sanjeeb Bhandari, Ruth E Gilbert, Miles Stanford


Acute toxoplasma retinochoroiditis causes transient symptoms of ocular discomfort and may lead to permanent visual loss. Antibiotic treatment aims primarily to reduce the risk of permanent visual loss, recurrent retinochoroiditis, and the severity and duration of acute symptoms. There is uncertainty about the effectiveness of antibiotic treatment. To compare the effects of antibiotic treatment versus placebo or no treatment for toxoplasma retinochoroiditis. We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision group Trials Register) (2016, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, Ovid OLDMEDLINE (January 1946 to February 2016), EMBASE (January 1980 to February 2016), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (January 1982 to February 2016), the ISRCTN registry (www.isrctn.com/editAdvancedSearch), ClinicalTrials.gov (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (www.who.int/ictrp/search/en). We did not use any date or language restrictions in the electronic searches for trials. We last searched the electronic databases on 22 February 2016. We searched the reference lists of identified articles and contacted pharmaceutical companies for unpublished trials. We included randomised controlled trials that compared any antibiotic treatment against placebo or no treatment. We excluded trials that included immunocompromised participants. We considered any antibiotic treatment known to be active against Toxoplasma gondii. Antibiotic treatment could be given in any dose orally, by intramuscular injection, by intravenous infusion, or by intravitreal injection. The primary outcomes for this review were visual acuity at least three months after treatment and risk of recurrent retinochoroiditis. Secondary outcomes were improvement in symptoms and signs of intraocular inflammation, size of lesion, and adverse events. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Four trials that randomised a total of 268 participants met the inclusion criteria. In all four studies antibiotic was administered orally.One study conducted in Brazil in both adults and children compared trimethoprim-sulfamexacocol over 20 months to no treatment and was judged to be at high risk of performance, detection, and attrition bias. The other three studies compared antibiotic treatment to placebo. We judged these three studies to be at a mixture of low or unclear risk of bias due to poor reporting. One study conducted in the US in adults studied pyrimethamine-trisulfapyrimidine for eight weeks; one study conducted in the UK in children and adults evaluated pyrimethamine for four weeks; and one study conducted in Brazil in adults investigated trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for 12 months. In the last study, all participants had active retinochoroiditis and were treated with antibiotics for 45 days prior to randomisation to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole versus placebo.Only the study in Brazil of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole over 12 months, in participants with healed lesions, reported the effect of treatment on visual acuity. People treated with antibiotics may have a similar change in visual acuity compared with people treated with placebo at one year (mean difference -1.00 letters, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.93 to 5.93 letters; 93 participants; low-quality evidence).Treatment with antibiotics probably reduces the risk of recurrent retinochoroiditis compared with placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.26, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.63; 227 participants; 3 studies; I(2) = 0%; moderate-quality evidence); similar results were seen for acute and chronic retinochoroiditis.The UK study of pyrimethamine for four weeks reported an improvement in intraocular inflammation in treated compared with control participants (RR 1.76, 95% CI 0.98 to 3.19; 29 participants; low-quality evidence). The study in Brazil of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole for 12 months stated that the severity of inflammation was higher in the comparator group when compared to the antibiotic-treated group but did not provide further details. In the US study of pyrimethamine-trisulfapyrimidine for eight weeks intraocular inflammation had almost completely resolved by eight weeks in all participants, however in this study all participants received steroid treatment.Two studies (UK and US studies) reported an increased risk of adverse events in treated participants. These were a fall in haemoglobin, leucocyte, and platelet count, nausea, loss of appetite, rash, and arthralgia. Treatment with antibiotics probably reduces the risk of recurrent toxoplasma retinochoroiditis, but there is currently no good evidence that this leads to better visual outcomes. However, absence of evidence of effect is not the same as evidence of no effect. Further trials of people with acute and chronic toxoplasma retinochoroiditis affecting any part of the retina are required to determine the effects of antibiotic treatment on visual outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 201 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 201 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 17%
Researcher 21 10%
Student > Bachelor 18 9%
Other 14 7%
Student > Postgraduate 12 6%
Other 36 18%
Unknown 65 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 67 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 3%
Other 24 12%
Unknown 75 37%
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 16 August 2019.
All research outputs
of 25,806,080 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 13,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 349,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 275 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,080 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 13,140 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. 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 349,899 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 275 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 58% of its contemporaries.