↓ Skip to main content

Standard versus biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing to guide antibiotic therapy in cystic fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 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
Standard versus biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing to guide antibiotic therapy in cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009528.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Valerie Waters, Felix Ratjen

Abstract

The antibiotics used to treat pulmonary infections in people with cystic fibrosis are typically chosen based on the results of antimicrobial susceptibility testing performed on bacteria traditionally grown in a planktonic mode (grown in a liquid). However, there is considerable evidence to suggest that Pseudomonas aeruginosa actually grows in a biofilm (or slime layer) in the airways of people with cystic fibrosis with chronic pulmonary infections. Therefore, choosing antibiotics based on biofilm rather than conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing could potentially improve response to treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in people with cystic fibrosis. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review. To compare biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing-driven therapy to conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing-driven therapy in the treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection in people with cystic fibrosis. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. Most recent search: 19 June 2017.We also searched two ongoing trials registries and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. Most recent searches: 24 August 2017 and 05 September 2017. Randomized controlled trials of antibiotic therapy based on biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing compared to antibiotic therapy based on conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing in the treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa pulmonary infection in people with cystic fibrosis. Both authors independently selected trials, assessed their risk of bias and extracted data from eligible trials. Additionally, the review authors contacted the trial investigators to obtain further information. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE criteria. The searches identified two multicentre, randomized, double-blind controlled clinical trials eligible for inclusion in the review with a total of 78 participants (adults and children); one trial was done in people who were clinically stable, the other in people experiencing pulmonary exacerbations. These trials prospectively assessed whether the use of biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing improved microbiological and clinical outcomes in participants with cystic fibrosis who were infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The primary outcome was the change in sputum Pseudomonas aeruginosa density from the beginning to the end of antibiotic therapy.Although the intervention was shown to be safe, the data from these two trials did not provide evidence that biofilm susceptibility testing was superior to conventional susceptibility testing either in terms of microbiological or lung function outcomes. One of the trials also measured risk and time to subsequent exacerbation as well as quality of life measures and did not demonstrate any difference between groups in these outcomes. Both trials had an overall low risk of bias and the quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria was deemed to be moderate to high for the outcomes selected. The current evidence is insufficient to recommend choosing antibiotics based on biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing rather than conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing in the treatment of Pseudomonas aeruginosa pulmonary infections in people with cystic fibrosis. Biofilm antimicrobial susceptibility testing may be more appropriate in the development of newer, more effective formulations of drugs which can then be tested in clinical trials.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 2%
Unknown 88 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 18%
Student > Bachelor 14 16%
Researcher 13 14%
Student > Master 10 11%
Other 4 4%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 22 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 30%
Immunology and Microbiology 9 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Psychology 5 6%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 24 27%
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 01 November 2017.
All research outputs
#7,994,598
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,885
of 12,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,539
of 331,193 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#173
of 200 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.2. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 331,193 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 200 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.