↓ Skip to main content

Investigating the burden of antibiotic resistance in ethnic minority groups in high-income countries: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, December 2017
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 (81st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
Title
Investigating the burden of antibiotic resistance in ethnic minority groups in high-income countries: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Systematic Reviews, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0654-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hannah Lishman, Paul Aylin, Vivian Alividza, Enrique Castro-Sanchez, Anuja Chatterjee, Victor Mariano, Alan P. Johnson, Samir Jeraj, Céire Costelloe

Abstract

Antibiotic resistance (ABR) is an urgent problem globally, with overuse and misuse of antibiotics being one of the main drivers of antibiotic-resistant infections. There is increasing evidence that the burden of community-acquired infections such as urinary tract infections and bloodstream infections (both susceptible and resistant) may differ by ethnicity, although the reasons behind this relationship are not well defined. It has been demonstrated that socioeconomic status and ethnicity are often highly correlated with each other; however, it is not yet known whether accounting for deprivation completely explains any discrepancy seen in infection risk. There have currently been no systematic reviews summarising the evidence for the relationship between ethnicity and antibiotic resistance or prescribing. This protocol will outline how we will conduct this systematic literature review and meta-analysis investigating whether there is an association between patient ethnicity and (1) risk of antibiotic-resistant infections or (2) levels of antibiotic prescribing in high-income countries. We will search PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, Scopus and CINAHL using MESH terms where applicable. Two reviewers will conduct title/abstract screening, data extraction and quality assessment independently. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist will be used for cohort and case-control studies, and the Cochrane collaboration's risk of bias tool will be used for randomised control trials, if they are included. Meta-analyses will be performed by calculating the minority ethnic group to majority ethnic group odds ratios or risk ratios for each study and presenting an overall pooled odds ratio for the two outcomes. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach will be used to assess the overall quality of the body of evidence. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we will aim to collate the available evidence of whether there is a difference in rates of AMR and/or antibiotic prescribing in minority vs. majority ethnic groups in high-income countries. Additionally, this review will highlight areas where more research needs to be conducted and may provide insight into what may cause differences in this relationship, should they be seen. PROSPERO ( CRD42016051533 ).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 89 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Researcher 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Other 4 4%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 32 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 4%
Psychology 4 4%
Other 19 21%
Unknown 38 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 29 August 2022.
All research outputs
#3,717,967
of 23,202,641 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#701
of 2,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,687
of 440,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#25
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,202,641 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,016 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 440,815 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 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 57% of its contemporaries.