↓ Skip to main content

Different antibiotic treatments for group A streptococcal pharyngitis

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
77 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 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
Different antibiotic treatments for group A streptococcal pharyngitis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004406.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mieke L van Driel, An IM De Sutter, Hilde Habraken, Sarah Thorning, Thierry Christiaens

Abstract

Antibiotics provide only modest benefit in treating sore throat, although effectiveness increases in participants with positive throat swabs for group A beta-haemolytic streptococci (GABHS). It is unclear which antibiotic is the best choice if antibiotics are indicated. To assess the evidence on the comparative efficacy of different antibiotics in: (a) alleviating symptoms (pain, fever); (b) shortening the duration of the illness; (c) preventing relapse; and (d) preventing complications (suppurative complications, acute rheumatic fever, post-streptococcal glomerulonephritis). To assess the evidence on the comparative incidence of adverse effects and the risk-benefit of antibiotic treatment for streptococcal pharyngitis. We searched CENTRAL (2016, Issue 3), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to March week 3, 2016), Embase Elsevier (1974 to March 2016), and Web of Science Thomson Reuters (2010 to March 2016). We also searched clinical trials registers. Randomised, double-blind trials comparing different antibiotics and reporting at least one of the following: clinical cure, clinical relapse, or complications or adverse events, or both. Two review authors independently screened trials for inclusion, and extracted data using standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias of included studies according to the methods outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and used the GRADE tool to assess the overall quality of evidence for the outcomes. We included 19 trials (5839 randomised participants); seven compared penicillin with cephalosporins, six compared penicillin with macrolides, three compared penicillin with carbacephem, one trial compared penicillin with sulphonamides, one trial compared clindamycin with ampicillin, and one trial compared azithromycin with amoxicillin in children. All included trials reported clinical outcomes. Reporting of randomisation, allocation concealment, and blinding was poor in all trials. The overall quality of the evidence assessed using the GRADE tool was low for the outcome 'resolution of symptoms' in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis and very low for the outcomes 'resolution of symptoms' of evaluable participants and for adverse events. We downgraded the quality of evidence mainly due to lack of (or poor reporting of) randomisation or blinding, or both, heterogeneity, and wide confidence intervals (CIs).There was a difference in symptom resolution in favour of cephalosporins compared with penicillin (evaluable patients analysis odds ratio (OR) for absence of resolution of symptoms 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.97; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 20, N = 5, n = 1660; very low quality evidence). However, this was not statistically significant in the ITT analysis (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.12; N = 5, n = 2018; low quality evidence). Clinical relapse was lower for cephalosporins compared with penicillin (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.99; NNTB 50, N = 4, n = 1386; low quality evidence), but this was found only in adults (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.88; NNTB 33, N = 2, n = 770). There were no differences between macrolides and penicillin for any of the outcomes. One unpublished trial in children found a better cure rate for azithromycin in a single dose compared to amoxicillin for 10 days (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.73; NNTB 18, N = 1, n = 482), but there was no difference between the groups in ITT analysis (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.05; N = 1, n = 673) or at long-term follow-up (evaluable patients analysis OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.82; N = 1, n = 422). Children experienced more adverse events with azithromycin compared to amoxicillin (OR 2.67, 95% CI 1.78 to 3.99; N = 1, n = 673). Compared with penicillin carbacephem showed better symptom resolution post-treatment in adults and children combined (ITT analysis OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.99; NNTB 14, N = 3, n = 795), and in the subgroup analysis of children (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.99; NNTB 8, N = 1, n = 233), but not in the subgroup analysis of adults (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.22, N = 2, n = 562). Children experienced more adverse events with macrolides compared with penicillin (OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 5.15; N = 1, n = 489). Studies did not report on long-term complications so it was unclear if any class of antibiotics was better in preventing serious but rare complications. There were no clinically relevant differences in symptom resolution when comparing cephalosporins and macrolides with penicillin in the treatment of GABHS tonsillopharyngitis. Limited evidence in adults suggests cephalosporins are more effective than penicillin for relapse, but the NNTB is high. Limited evidence in children suggests carbacephem is more effective than penicillin for symptom resolution. Data on complications are too scarce to draw conclusions. Based on these results and considering the low cost and absence of resistance, penicillin can still be regarded as a first choice treatment for both adults and children. All studies were in high-income countries with low risk of streptococcal complications, so there is need for trials in low-income countries and Aboriginal communities where risk of complications remains high.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 77 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 115 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 23%
Researcher 18 16%
Unspecified 13 11%
Student > Bachelor 13 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Other 35 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 43%
Unspecified 18 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 9%
Psychology 9 8%
Other 17 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 61. 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 06 November 2018.
All research outputs
#270,428
of 13,190,464 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#721
of 10,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,170
of 263,125 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#16
of 181 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,190,464 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,519 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 263,125 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 181 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.