↓ Skip to main content

Antibiotic treatment for nontuberculous mycobacteria lung infection in people with cystic fibrosis

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 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
Antibiotic treatment for nontuberculous mycobacteria lung infection in people with cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010004.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Valerie Waters, Felix Ratjen

Abstract

Nontuberculous mycobacteria are mycobacteria, other than those in the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex, and are commonly found in the environment. Nontuberculous mycobacteria species (most commonly Mycobacterium avium complex and Mycobacterium abscessus) are isolated from the respiratory tract of approximately 5% to 40% of individuals with cystic fibrosis; they can cause lung disease in people with cystic fibrosis leading to more a rapid decline in lung function and even death in certain circumstances. Although there are guidelines for the antimicrobial treatment of nontuberculous mycobacteria lung disease, these recommendations are not specific for people with cystic fibrosis and it is not clear which antibiotic regimen may be the most effective in the treatment of these individuals. This is an update of a previous review. The objective of our review was to compare antibiotic treatment to no antibiotic treatment, or to compare different combinations of antibiotic treatment, for nontuberculous mycobacteria lung infections in people with cystic fibrosis. The primary objective was to assess the effect of treatment on lung function and pulmonary exacerbations and to quantify adverse events. The secondary objectives were to assess treatment effects on the amount of bacteria in the sputum, quality of life, mortality, nutritional parameters, hospitalizations and use of oral antibiotics. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and hand searching of journals and conference abstract books. Date of last search: 02 September 2016.We also searched a register of ongoing trials and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews. Date of last search: 03 November 2016. Any randomized controlled trials comparing nontuberculous mycobacteria antibiotics to no antibiotic treatment, as well as one nontuberculous mycobacteria antibiotic regimen compared to another nontuberculous mycobacteria antibiotic regimen, in individuals with cystic fibrosis.   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were not collected because in the one trial identified by the search, data specific to individuals with cystic fibrosis could not be obtained from the pharmaceutical company. One completed trial was identified by the searches, but data specific to individuals with cystic fibrosis could not be obtained from the pharmaceutical company. This review did not find any evidence for the effectiveness of different antimicrobial treatment for nontuberculous mycobacteria lung disease in people with cystic fibrosis. Until such evidence becomes available, it is reasonable for clinicians to follow published clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of nodular or bronchiectatic pulmonary disease due to Mycobacterium avium complex or Mycobacterium abscessus in patients with cystic fibrosis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 62 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 19%
Student > Bachelor 9 15%
Student > Postgraduate 7 11%
Student > Master 7 11%
Other 5 8%
Other 12 19%
Unknown 10 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 50%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 14 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 20 December 2016.
All research outputs
#7,317,332
of 13,615,200 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,150
of 10,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,694
of 373,119 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#124
of 157 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,615,200 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,678 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 373,119 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 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 157 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.