↓ Skip to main content

Prophylactic anti-staphylococcal antibiotics for cystic fibrosis

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

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 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
Prophylactic anti-staphylococcal antibiotics for cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001912.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alan R Smyth, Margaret Rosenfeld

Abstract

Staphylococcus aureus causes pulmonary infection in young children with cystic fibrosis. Prophylactic antibiotics are prescribed hoping to prevent such infection and lung damage. Antibiotics have adverse effects and long-term use might lead to infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. This is an update of a previously published review. To assess continuous oral antibiotic prophylaxis to prevent the acquisition of Staphylococcus aureus versus no prophylaxis in people with cystic fibrosis, we tested these hypotheses. Prophylaxis:1. improves clinical status, lung function and survival;2. causes adverse effects (e.g. diarrhoea, skin rash, candidiasis);3. leads to fewer isolates of common pathogens from respiratory secretions;4. leads to the emergence of antibiotic resistance and colonisation of the respiratory tract with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register, comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches, handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. Companies manufacturing anti-staphylococcal antibiotics were contacted.Most recent search of the Group's Register: 29 September 2016. Randomised trials of continuous oral prophylactic antibiotics (given for at least one year) compared to intermittent antibiotics given 'as required', in people with cystic fibrosis of any disease severity. The authors assessed studies for eligibility and methodological quality and extracted data. We included four studies, with a total of 401 randomised participants aged zero to seven years on enrolment; one study is ongoing. The two older included studies generally had a higher risk of bias across all domains, but in particular due to a lack of blinding and incomplete outcome data, than the two more recent studies. We only regarded the most recent study as being generally free of bias, although even here we were not certain of the effect of the per protocol analysis on the study results. Evidence was downgraded based on GRADE assessments and outcome results ranged from moderate to low quality. Downgrading decisions were due to limitations in study design (all outcomes); for imprecision (number of people needing additional antibiotics); and for inconsistency (weight z score).Fewer children receiving anti-staphylococcal antibiotic prophylaxis had one or more isolates of Staphylococcus aureus (low quality evidence). There was no significant difference between groups in infant or conventional lung function (moderate quality evidence). We found no significant effect on nutrition (low quality evidence), hospital admissions, additional courses of antibiotics (low quality evidence) or adverse effects (moderate quality evidence). There was no significant difference in the number of isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa between groups (low quality evidence), though there was a trend towards a lower cumulative isolation rate of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the prophylaxis group at two and three years and towards a higher rate from four to six years. As the studies reviewed lasted six years or less, conclusions cannot be drawn about the long-term effects of prophylaxis. Anti-staphylococcal antibiotic prophylaxis leads to fewer children having isolates of Staphylococcus aureus, when commenced early in infancy and continued up to six years of age. The clinical importance of this finding is uncertain. Further research may establish whether the trend towards more children with CF with Pseudomonas aeruginosa, after four to six years of prophylaxis, is a chance finding and whether choice of antibiotic or duration of treatment might influence this.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 %
United Kingdom 2 2%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 107 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 20 18%
Student > Master 18 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 13%
Researcher 13 12%
Other 7 6%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 19 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 30 27%

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 21 April 2017.
All research outputs
#6,986,811
of 13,190,464 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,915
of 10,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,916
of 264,568 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#197
of 242 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,190,464 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 264,568 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 242 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.