↓ Skip to main content

Third generation cephalosporins versus conventional antibiotics for treating acute bacterial meningitis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
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 (83rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
169 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
Third generation cephalosporins versus conventional antibiotics for treating acute bacterial meningitis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001832.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kameshwar Prasad, Amit Kumar, Tarun Singhal, Praveen Kumar Gupta

Abstract

Antibiotic therapy for suspected acute bacterial meningitis (ABM) needs to be started immediately, even before the results of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) culture and antibiotic sensitivity are available. Immediate commencement of effective treatment using the intravenous route may reduce death and disability. Although bacterial meningitis guidelines advise the use of third generation cephalosporins, these drugs are often not available in hospitals in low income countries. The objective of this review was to compare the effectiveness and safety of third generation cephalosporins and conventional treatment with penicillin or ampicillin-chloramphenicol in patients with community-acquired ABM. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 1) which contains the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Trials Register, MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2007), and EMBASE (January 1974 to March 2007). We also searched the reference list of review articles and book chapters, and contacted experts for any unpublished trials. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ceftriaxone or cefotaxime with conventional antibiotics as empirical therapy for acute bacterial meningitis. Two review authors independently applied the study selection criteria, assessed methodological quality, and extracted data. Nineteen trials that involved 1496 patients were included in the analysis. There was no heterogeneity of results among the studies in any outcome except diarrhoea. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in the risk of death (risk difference (RD) 0%; 95% confidence interval (CI) -3% to 2%), risk of deafness (RD -4%; 95% CI -9% to 1%), or risk of treatment failure (RD -1%; 95% CI -4% to 2%). However, there were significantly decreased risks of culture positivity of CSF after 10 to 48 hours (RD -6%; 95% CI -11% to 0%) and statistically significant increases in the risk of diarrhoea between the groups (RD 8%; 95% CI 3% to 13%) with the third generation cephalosporins. The risk of neutropaenia and skin rash were not significantly different between the two groups. However, all the studies were conducted in the 1980s except three, which were reported in 1993, 1996, and 2005. The review shows no clinically important difference between ceftriaxone or cefotaxime and conventional antibiotics. In situations where availability or affordability is an issue, third generation cephalosporins, ampicillin-chloramphenicol combination, or chloramphenicol alone may be used as alternatives. The antimicrobial resistance pattern against various antibiotics needs to be closely monitored in low to middle income countries as well as high income countries.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 169 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Colombia 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 161 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 27 16%
Student > Bachelor 25 15%
Student > Postgraduate 24 14%
Student > Master 22 13%
Other 14 8%
Other 36 21%
Unknown 21 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 88 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Other 23 14%
Unknown 31 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 01 January 2015.
All research outputs
#1,954,006
of 12,100,779 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,914
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,835
of 161,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#29
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,100,779 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 161,365 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.