↓ Skip to main content

Antibiotic treatment for Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in people with cystic fibrosis

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Antibiotic treatment for <i>Stenotrophomonas maltophilia</i> in people with cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009249.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Reshma Amin, Valerie Waters

Abstract

Stenotrophomonas maltophilia is one of the most common emerging multi-drug resistant organisms found in the lungs of people with cystic fibrosis and its prevalence is increasing. Chronic infection with Stenotrophomonas maltophilia has recently been shown to be an independent predictor of pulmonary exacerbation requiring hospitalization and antibiotics. However, the role of antibiotic treatment of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infection in people with cystic fibrosis is still unclear. This is an update of a previously published review. The objective of our review is to assess the effectiveness of antibiotic treatment for Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in people with cystic fibrosis. The primary objective is to assess this in relation to lung function and pulmonary exacerbations in the setting of acute pulmonary exacerbations. The secondary objective is to assess this in relation to the eradication of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched a registry of ongoing trials and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews.Date of latest search: 27 May 2016. Any randomized controlled trial of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia mono-infection or Stenotrophomonas maltophilia co-infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa in either the setting of an acute pulmonary exacerbation or a chronic infection treated with suppressive antibiotic therapy. Both authors independently assessed the trials identified by the search for potential inclusion in the review. The initial search strategy identified only one trial of antibiotic treatment of pulmonary exacerbations that included people with cystic fibrosis with Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. However, this trial had to be excluded because data was not available per pathogen. This review did not identify any evidence regarding the effectiveness of antibiotic treatment for Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in people with cystic fibrosis. Until such evidence becomes available, clinicians need to use their clinical judgement as to whether or not to treat Stenotrophomonas maltophilia infection in people with cystic fibrosis. Randomized clinical trials are needed to address these unanswered clinical questions.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 1%
Unknown 75 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 17%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Student > Postgraduate 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Other 20 26%
Unknown 15 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 37%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 20 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 24 August 2016.
All research outputs
#6,325,708
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,642
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,098
of 371,157 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#135
of 206 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 371,157 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 206 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.