↓ Skip to main content

One dose per day compared to multiple doses per day of gentamicin for treatment of suspected or proven sepsis in neonates

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 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 (81st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 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
One dose per day compared to multiple doses per day of gentamicin for treatment of suspected or proven sepsis in neonates
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005091.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shripada C Rao, Ravisha Srinivasjois, Kwi Moon

Abstract

Animal studies and trials in older children and adults suggest that a 'one dose per day' regimen of gentamicin is superior to a 'multiple doses per day' regimen. To compare the efficacy and safety of one dose per day compared to multiple doses per day of gentamicin in suspected or proven sepsis in neonates. Eligible studies were identified by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 3) in the Cochrane Library (searched 8 April 2016), MEDLINE (1966 to 8 April 2016), Embase (1980 to 8 April 2016), and CINAHL (December 1982 to 8 April 2016). All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing one dose per day ('once a day') compared to multiple doses per day ('multiple doses a day') of gentamicin to newborn infants. Data collection and analysis was performed according to the standards of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. Eleven RCTs were included (N = 574) and 28 excluded. All except one study enrolled infants of more than 32 weeks' gestation. Limited information suggested that infants in both 'once a day' as well as 'multiple doses a day' regimens showed adequate clearance of sepsis (typical RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.19; typical RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.19; 3 trials; N = 37). 'Once a day' gentamicin regimen was associated with fewer failures to attain peak level of at least 5 µg/ml (typical RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.47; typical RD -0.13, 95% CI -0.19 to -0.08; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 8; 9 trials; N = 422); and fewer failures to achieve trough levels of 2 µg/ml or less (typical RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.55; typical RD -0.22, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.15; NNTB = 4; 11 trials; N = 503). 'Once a day' gentamicin achieved higher peak levels (MD 2.58, 95% CI 2.26 to 2.89; 10 trials; N = 440) and lower trough levels (MD -0.57, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.44; 10 trials; N = 440) than 'multiple doses a day' regimen. There was no significant difference in ototoxicity between two groups (typical RR 1.69, 95% CI 0.18 to 16.25; typical RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.05; 5 trials; N = 214). Nephrotoxicity was not noted with either of the treatment regimens. Overall, the quality of evidence was considered to be moderate on GRADE analysis, given the small sample size and unclear/high risk of bias in some of the domains in a few of the included studies. There is insufficient evidence from the currently available RCTs to conclude whether a 'once a day' or a 'multiple doses a day' regimen of gentamicin is superior in treating proven neonatal sepsis. However, data suggest that pharmacokinetic properties of a 'once a day' gentamicin regimen are superior to a 'multiple doses a day' regimen in that it achieves higher peak levels while avoiding toxic trough levels. There was no change in nephrotoxicity or auditory toxicity. Based on the assessment of pharmacokinetics, a 'once a day regimen' may be superior in treating sepsis in neonates of more than 32 weeks' gestation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Kenya 2 2%
Thailand 1 <1%
Unknown 117 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 18%
Student > Bachelor 14 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 12%
Researcher 13 11%
Student > Postgraduate 11 9%
Other 26 22%
Unknown 20 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 39%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 13 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 8%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 3%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 29 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 05 June 2019.
All research outputs
#2,308,095
of 15,606,931 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,906
of 11,222 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,946
of 388,273 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#74
of 147 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,606,931 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 11,222 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.2. 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 388,273 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 147 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.