↓ Skip to main content

Once-daily versus multiple-daily dosing with intravenous aminoglycosides for cystic fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 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
Once-daily versus multiple-daily dosing with intravenous aminoglycosides for cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002009.pub6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alan R Smyth, Jayesh Bhatt, Sarah J Nevitt

Abstract

People with cystic fibrosis, who are chronically colonised with the organism Pseudomonas aeruginosa, often require multiple courses of intravenous aminoglycoside antibiotics for the management of pulmonary exacerbations. The properties of aminoglycosides suggest that they could be given in higher doses less often. This is an update of a previously published review. To assess the effectiveness and safety of once-daily versus multiple-daily dosing of intravenous aminoglycoside antibiotics for the management of pulmonary exacerbations in cystic fibrosis. We searched the Cystic Fibrosis Specialist Register held at the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's editorial base, comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearching relevant journals and handsearching abstract books of conference proceedings.Date of the most recent search: 24 June 2016. All randomised controlled trials, whether published or unpublished, in which once-daily dosing of aminoglycosides has been compared with multiple-daily dosing in terms of efficacy or toxicity or both, in people with cystic fibrosis. The two authors independently selected the studies to be included in the review and assessed the risk of bias of each study; authors also assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE criteria. Data were independently extracted by each author. Authors of the included studies were contacted for further information. As yet unpublished data were obtained for one of the included studies. Fifteen studies were identified for possible inclusion in the review. Four studies reporting results from a total of 328 participants (aged 5 to 50 years) were included in this review. All studies compared once-daily dosing with thrice-daily dosing. One study had a low risk of bias for all criteria assessed; the remaining three included studies had a high risk of bias from blinding, but for other criteria were judged to have either an unclear or a low risk of bias.There was no significant difference between treatment groups in: forced expiratory volume in one second, mean difference 0.33 (95% confidence interval -2.81 to 3.48, moderate quality evidence); forced vital capacity, mean difference 0.29 (95% confidence interval -6.58 to 7.16, low quality evidence); % weight for height, mean difference -0.82 (95% confidence interval -3.77 to 2.13, low quality evidence); body mass index, mean difference 0.00 (95% confidence interval -0.42 to 0.42, low quality evidence); or in the incidence of ototoxicity, relative risk 0.56 (95% confidence interval 0.04 to 7.96, moderate quality evidence). The percentage change in creatinine significantly favoured once-daily treatment in children, mean difference -8.20 (95% confidence interval -15.32 to -1.08, moderate quality evidence), but showed no difference in adults, mean difference 3.25 (95% confidence interval -1.82 to 8.33, moderate quality evidence). The included trials did not report antibiotic resistance patterns or quality of life. Once- and three-times daily aminoglycoside antibiotics appear to be equally effective in the treatment of pulmonary exacerbations of cystic fibrosis. There is evidence of less nephrotoxicity in children.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 107 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 17%
Researcher 16 15%
Student > Master 13 12%
Student > Bachelor 13 12%
Unspecified 9 8%
Other 40 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 60 55%
Unspecified 12 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Other 20 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 15 April 2017.
All research outputs
#3,380,530
of 13,190,464 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,244
of 10,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,427
of 261,330 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#161
of 251 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,190,464 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
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 is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 261,330 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 251 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.