↓ 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 (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 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 All randomised controlled trials, whether published or unpublished, in which once-daily dosing of aminoglycosides has been compared with multiple-daily dosing in terms of efficacy or toxicity or both, in people with cystic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 As yet unpublished data were obtained for one of the included studies.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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 96 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 15%
Student > Master 12 13%
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Other 19 20%
Unknown 25 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 4%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 29 30%
Attention Score in Context

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
#7,334,177
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,532
of 12,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,003
of 323,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#169
of 204 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.2. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 323,290 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 204 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.