↓ Skip to main content

Moving Past the Routine Use of Macrolides—Reviewing the Role of Combination Therapy in Community-Acquired Pneumonia

Overview of attention for article published in Current Infectious Disease Reports, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#15 of 529)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
64 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
Title
Moving Past the Routine Use of Macrolides—Reviewing the Role of Combination Therapy in Community-Acquired Pneumonia
Published in
Current Infectious Disease Reports, September 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11908-018-0651-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Geoffrey Shumilak, Wendy I. Sligl

Abstract

Despite advances in diagnostic microbiology and sepsis management, community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Current recommendations regarding the use of beta-lactams in combination with macrolides published in clinical practice guidelines are variable and based on low-quality evidence that is frequently retrospective, observational, and heterogeneous in nature. While population-based studies have historically suggested improved clinical outcomes with the routine use of macrolide combination therapy in hospitalized patients with CAP, emerging evidence from recent randomized controlled trials has challenged this practice. In this article, we discuss the historical rationale and current evidence for combination macrolide therapy in the management of CAP. Recent randomized controlled trials have assessed the non-inferiority of beta-lactam monotherapy compared to beta-lactam/macrolide combination therapy in adult patients hospitalized with CAP. Beta-lactam monotherapy was associated with equivalent clinical outcomes in patients with mild to moderate CAP. Patients with severe CAP managed with beta-lactam monotherapy have demonstrated worse clinical outcomes when compared to patients treated with combination therapy. In addition, previous beta-lactam exposure prior to hospitalization has not been shown to negatively impact outcomes in patients managed with beta-lactam monotherapy in the hospital. Current evidence supports the use of beta-lactam monotherapy in adult patients hospitalized with mild to moderate CAP. While existing evidence supports the use of combination therapy in patients with severe pneumonia, further large-scale randomized controlled trials are urgently needed to clarify the role of combination therapy in this population.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 64 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Student > Master 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 5%
Other 5 13%
Unknown 14 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 36%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 8%
Chemistry 2 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 16 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 39. 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 22 August 2019.
All research outputs
#1,058,547
of 25,628,260 outputs
Outputs from Current Infectious Disease Reports
#15
of 529 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,212
of 346,398 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Infectious Disease Reports
#1
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,628,260 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 529 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 346,398 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.