↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Antibiotic treatment for Burkholderia cepacia complex in people with cystic fibrosis experiencing a pulmonary exacerbation

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 Mendeley
Title
Antibiotic treatment for <i>Burkholderia cepacia</i> complex in people with cystic fibrosis experiencing a pulmonary exacerbation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009529.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alex Horsley, Andrew M Jones, Robert Lord

Abstract

Chronic pulmonary infection is a hallmark of lung disease in cystic fibrosis. Infections dominated by organisms of the Burkholderia cepacia complex, a group of at least 18 closely-related species of gram-negative bacteria, are particularly difficult to treat. These infections may be associated with a fulminant necrotising pneumonia. Burkholderia cepacia complex bacteria are resistant to many common antibiotics and able to acquire resistance against many more. Following patient segregation in cystic fibrosis medical care, the more virulent epidemic strains are not as frequent, and new infections are more likely to be with less virulent environmentally-acquired strains. Although evidence-based guidelines exist for treating respiratory exacerbations involving Pseudomonas aeruginosa, these cannot be extended to Burkholderia cepacia complex infections. This review, which is an update of a previous review, aims to assess the available trial evidence for the choice and application of treatments for these infections. To assess the effectiveness and safety of different antibiotic regimens in people with cystic fibrosis experiencing an exacerbation and chronically infected with organisms of the Burkholderia cepacia complex. 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.Date of latest search: 28 August 2015. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of treatments for exacerbations of pulmonary symptoms in people with cystic fibrosis chronically infected with organisms of the Burkholderia cepacia complex. No relevant trials were identified. No trials were included in this review. Burkholderia cepacia complex infections present a significant challenge for people with cystic fibrosis and their clinicians. The incidence is likely to increase as the cystic fibrosis population ages; and managing and treating these infections will become more important. There is a lack of trial evidence to guide decision making and no conclusions can be drawn from this review about the optimal antibiotic regimens for people with cystic fibrosis who have chronic Burkholderia cepacia complex infections. Clinicians must continue to assess each person individually, taking into account in vitro antibiotic susceptibility data, previous clinical responses and their own experience. Multicentre randomised clinical trials are needed to assess the effectiveness of different antibiotic regimens in people with cystic fibrosis infected with organisms of the Burkholderia cepacia complex.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Argentina 1 <1%
Unknown 120 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 24 20%
Student > Master 18 15%
Other 11 9%
Researcher 10 8%
Student > Postgraduate 10 8%
Other 27 22%
Unknown 21 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 6%
Other 17 14%
Unknown 24 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 August 2016.
All research outputs
#2,586,518
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,150
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,249
of 403,872 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#117
of 239 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 89th 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 403,872 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 239 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.