↓ Skip to main content

Probiotics prophylaxis in pyelonephritis infants with normal urinary tracts

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Pediatrics, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
Probiotics prophylaxis in pyelonephritis infants with normal urinary tracts
Published in
World Journal of Pediatrics, April 2016
DOI 10.1007/s12519-016-0013-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Seung Joo Lee, Jihae Cha, Jung Won Lee

Abstract

Pyelonephritis in infants is considered as a major factor for the formation of renal scar. To prevent recurrent pyelonephritis and renal damage, prophylaxis is extremely important. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of probiotic and antibiotic prophylaxis or no-prophylaxis in infants with pyelonephritis and normal urinary tract. Altogether 191 infants, who were diagnosed with acute pyelonephritis, proven to have normal urinary tracts and followed up for 6 months on prophylaxis, were retrospectively evaluated. According to the types of prophylaxis, the infants were divided into three groups [probiotics (Lactobacillus species), antibiotics (trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, TMP/SMX), and noprophylaxis]. The incidence of recurrent urinary tract infection (UTI) during 6 months after the development of pyelonephritis, main causative uropathogens, and its antimicrobial sensitivities were compared. The incidence of recurrent UTI in the probiotic group was 8.2%, which was significantly lower than 20.6% in the no-prophylaxis group (P=0.035) and was not significantly different from 10.0% of the antibiotic group (P=0.532). The significant difference between the probiotic and no-prophylaxis groups was seen only in male infants (P=0.032). The main causative organism of recurrent UTI was Escherichia coli (E.coli), which was not different among the three groups (P=0.305). The resistance rate of E. coli to TMP/SMX was 100% in the antibiotic group, which was significantly higher than 25.0% in the probiotic group and 41.7% in the no-prophylaxis group (P=0.008). Probiotic prophylaxis was more effective in infants with pyelonephritis and normal urinary tract than in those with no-prophylaxis. It could be used as a natural alternative to antibiotic prophylaxis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 13%
Other 7 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Student > Master 4 8%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 18 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 32%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 22 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 April 2016.
All research outputs
#17,796,099
of 22,860,626 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Pediatrics
#267
of 553 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,626
of 300,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Pediatrics
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,860,626 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 553 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 300,819 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.