↓ Skip to main content

Treatment for peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2008
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 (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Treatment for peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2008
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005284.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wiggins, Kathryn J, Craig, Jonathan C, Johnson, David W, Strippoli, Giovanni FM, Wiggins, K J, Craig, J C, Johnson, D W, Strippoli, G F

Abstract

Peritonitis is a common complication of peritoneal dialysis (PD) and is associated with significant morbidity. Adequate treatment is essential to reduce morbidity and recurrence. To evaluate the benefits and harms of treatments for PD-associated peritonitis. We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's specialised register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, in The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE and reference lists without language restriction. Date of search: February 2005 All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs assessing the treatment of peritonitis in peritoneal dialysis patients (adults and children) evaluating: administration of an antibiotic(s) by different routes (e.g. oral, intraperitoneal, intravenous); dose of an antibiotic agent(s); different schedules of administration of antimicrobial agents; comparisons of different regimens of antimicrobial agents; any other intervention including fibrinolytic agents, peritoneal lavage and early catheter removal were included. Two authors extracted data on study quality and outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model and the dichotomous results were expressed as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (WMD) with 95% CI. We identified 36 studies (2089 patients): antimicrobial agents (30); urokinase (4), peritoneal lavage (1) intraperitoneal (IP) immunoglobulin (1). No superior antibiotic agent or combination of agents were identified. Primary response and relapse rates did not differ between IP glycopeptide-based regimens compared to first generation cephalosporin regimens, although glycopeptide regimens were more likely to achieve a complete cure (3 studies, 370 episodes: RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.58). For relapsing or persistent peritonitis, simultaneous catheter removal/replacement was superior to urokinase at reducing treatment failure rates (1 study, 37 patients: RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.91). Continuous IP and intermittent IP antibiotic dosing had similar treatment failure and relapse rates. IP antibiotics were superior to IV antibiotics in reducing treatment failure (1 study, 75 patients: RR 3.52, 95% CI 1.26 to 9.81). The methodological quality of most included studies was suboptimal and outcome definitions were often inconsistent. There were no RCTs regarding duration of antibiotics or timing of catheter removal. Based on one study, IP administration of antibiotics is superior to IV dosing for treating PD peritonitis. Intermittent and continuous dosing of antibiotics are equally efficacious. There is no role shown for routine peritoneal lavage or use of urokinase. No interventions were found to be associated with significant harm.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Singapore 1 2%
South Africa 1 2%
Unknown 51 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 15%
Student > Master 8 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Professor 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Other 13 25%
Unknown 11 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 55%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 12 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 22 June 2022.
All research outputs
#3,464,814
of 23,929,753 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,242
of 12,771 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,699
of 159,896 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#32
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,929,753 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,771 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 159,896 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 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 62% of its contemporaries.