↓ Skip to main content

Eradication therapy for Burkholderia cepacia complex in people with cystic fibrosis

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
Eradication therapy for <i>Burkholderia cepacia</i> complex in people with cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009876.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kate H Regan, Jayesh Bhatt

Abstract

Chronic infection with Burkholderia cepacia complex species remains a significant problem for clinicians treating people with cystic fibrosis. Colonisation with Burkholderia cepacia complex species is linked to a more rapid decline in lung function and increases morbidity and mortality. There remain no objective guidelines for strategies to eradicate Burkholderia cepacia complex in cystic fibrosis lung disease, as these are inherently resistant to the majority of antibiotics and there has been very little research in this area. This review aims to examine the current treatment options for people with cystic fibrosis with acute of Burkholderia cepacia complex and to identify an evidence-based strategy that is both safe and effective. This is an updated version of the review. To identify whether treatment of Burkholderia cepacia complex infections can achieve eradication, or if treatment can prevent or delay the onset of chronic infection. To establish whether following eradication, clinical outcomes are improved and if there are any adverse effects. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews.Last search: 14 July 2016.We also searched electronic clinical trials registers for the USA and Europe.Date of last search: 14 July 2016. Randomised or quasi-randomised studies in people with cystic fibrosis of antibiotics or alternative therapeutic agents used alone or in combination, using any method of delivery and any treatment duration, to eradicate Burkholderia cepacia complex infections compared to another antibiotic, placebo or no treatment. Two authors independently assessed for inclusion in the review the eligibility of 50 studies (70 references) identified by the search of the Group's Trial Register and the other electronic searches. No studies looking at the eradication of Burkholderia cepacia complex species were identified. The authors have concluded that there was an extreme lack of evidence in this area of treatment management for people with cystic fibrosis. Without further comprehensive studies, it is difficult to draw conclusions about a safe and effective management strategy for Burkholderia cepacia complex eradication in cystic fibrosis. Thus, while the review could not offer clinicians evidence of an effective eradication protocol for Burkholderia cepacia complex, it has highlighted an urgent need for exploration and research in this area, specifically the need for well-designed multi-centre randomised controlled studies of a variety of (novel) antibiotic agents.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 25%
Student > Master 5 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 4 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 46%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 4 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 28 April 2017.
All research outputs
#16,106,935
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,216
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,389
of 317,353 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#222
of 261 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 317,353 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 261 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.