↓ Skip to main content

Impact of continuous low-dose antibiotic prophylaxis on growth in children with vesicoureteral reflux

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pediatric Urology, July 2018
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 (72nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Readers on

mendeley
50 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.
Article details
Title
Impact of continuous low-dose antibiotic prophylaxis on growth in children with vesicoureteral reflux
Published in
Journal of Pediatric Urology, July 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.jpurol.2018.07.007
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Continuous antibiotic prophylaxis (CAP) is a mainstay of treatment for children with vesicoureteral reflux (VUR). There has been an increasing focus on the effect of antibiotics on gut microbiota and subsequent repercussions on growth. Continuous antibiotic prophylaxis is generally considered safe; however, its impact on growth in children with VUR remains unknown. This objective of this study was to determine whether CAP altered height, weight, or body mass index (BMI) in children with VUR. Children diagnosed with primary VUR were identified. Demographics including weight and height percentiles, BMI and BMI percentiles, age, gender, antibiotic class, prior antibiotic use, urinary tract infection history, and breakthrough infections were tested in univariate and multivariate analyses. Primary outcome was change in BMI as well as weight, height, and BMI percentiles. One hundred eighty patients (146 girls, 34 boys) were prescribed CAP at mean age of 29.2 ± 26.2 months. Mean follow-up on CAP was 4.1 ± 3.3 years, with median follow-up of 3.08 years. Mean increase in weight percentile was 1.49 (2.02 males, 1.37 females; P = 0.46). Mean decrease in height percentile was -4.44 (-2.18 males, -4.95 females; P = 0.51). Age at diagnosis (P = 0.004) and history of prior treatment courses of antibiotics (P = 0.007) were associated with a significant BMI increase (Fig. 1). Body mass index percentile increased from 58.4 to 66.5; however, this increase was only significant in children aged above 1 year (P < 0.0001). Of note, children above 1 year of age were significantly more likely to have a history of prior treatment courses of antibiotics (58% vs 32%; P < 0.0001), and when controlling for prior antibiotic use, the increase in BMI percentile in those over 1 year of age did not reach significance. The use of antibiotics has been associated with alterations in pediatric growth parameters in both animal models and clinical studies. However, little information exists on the impact of prophylactic-dosed antibiotics on growth. While this study is limited by the retrospective analysis and small sample size, it was found that the use of CAP did impact growth parameters, with a stronger effect seen in children who had received prior treatment courses of antibiotics before the infection leading to the initiation of CAP. Continuous antibiotic prophylaxis was correlated with significant increase in BMI in children with prior antibiotic usage and a significant increase in BMI percentile in children aged above 1 year. Continuous antibiotic prophylaxis was also associated with decreased height percentiles, particularly in patients aged less than 1 year, though it did not reach statistical significance. Further analysis is needed to investigate whether these effects on weight, height, and BMI are persistent and clinically significant.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 50 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Student > Postgraduate 6 12%
Other 3 6%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Student > Master 3 6%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 20 40%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Philosophy 1 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 20 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 January 2019.
All research outputs
#6,881,621
of 31,700,720 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pediatric Urology
#426
of 2,907 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,016
of 358,703 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pediatric Urology
#9
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 31,700,720 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,907 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 358,703 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.