↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Oral anti‐pseudomonal antibiotics for cystic fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

7 X users
1 Facebook page


14 Dimensions

Readers on

187 Mendeley
Oral anti‐pseudomonal antibiotics for cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005405.pub4
Pubmed ID

Tracey Remmington, Nikki Jahnke, Christian Harkensee


Pseudomonas aeruginosa is the most common bacterial pathogen causing lung infections in people with cystic fibrosis and appropriate antibiotic therapy is vital. Antibiotics for pulmonary exacerbations are usually given intravenously, and for long-term treatment, via a nebuliser. Oral anti-pseudomonal antibiotics with the same efficacy and safety as intravenous or nebulised antibiotics would benefit people with cystic fibrosis due to ease of treatment and avoidance of hospitalisation. This is an update of a previous review. To determine the benefit or harm of oral anti-pseudomonal antibiotic therapy for people with cystic fibrosis, colonised with Pseudomonas aeruginosa, in the:1. treatment of a pulmonary exacerbation; and2. long-term treatment of chronic infection. 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.We contacted pharmaceutical companies and checked reference lists of identified trials.Date of last search: 08 July 2016. Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing any dose of oral anti-pseudomonal antibiotics, to other combinations of inhaled, oral or intravenous antibiotics, or to placebo or usual treatment for pulmonary exacerbations and long-term treatment. Two authors independently selected the trials, extracted data and assessed quality. We contacted trial authors to obtain missing information. We included three trials examining pulmonary exacerbations (171 participants) and two trials examining long-term therapy (85 participants). We regarded the most important outcomes as quality of life and lung function. The analysis did not identify any statistically significant difference between oral anti-pseudomonal antibiotics and other treatments for these outcome measures for either pulmonary exacerbations or long-term treatment. One of the included trials reported significantly better lung function when treating a pulmonary exacerbation with ciprofloxacin when compared with intravenous treatment; however, our analysis did not confirm this finding. We found no evidence of difference between oral anti-pseudomonal antibiotics and other treatments regarding adverse events or development of antibiotic resistance, but trials were not adequately powered to detect this. None of the studies had a low risk of bias from blinding which may have an impact particularly on subjective outcomes such as quality of life. The risk of bias for other criteria could not be clearly stated across the studies. We found no conclusive evidence that an oral anti-pseudomonal antibiotic regimen is more or less effective than an alternative treatment for either pulmonary exacerbations or long-term treatment of chronic infection with P. aeruginosa. Until results of adequately-powered future trials are available, treatment needs to be selected on a pragmatic basis, based upon any available non-randomised evidence, the clinical circumstances of the individual, the known effectiveness of drugs against local strains and upon individual preference.

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 187 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 184 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 13%
Student > Bachelor 16 9%
Researcher 12 6%
Other 11 6%
Other 29 16%
Unknown 63 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 9 5%
Psychology 9 5%
Other 27 14%
Unknown 68 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 12 October 2018.
All research outputs
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 371,164 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 192 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 371,164 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 192 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.