↓ Skip to main content

Empirical antibiotics targeting gram-positive bacteria for the treatment of febrile neutropenic patients with cancer

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 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
Empirical antibiotics targeting gram-positive bacteria for the treatment of febrile neutropenic patients with cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003914.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ofrat Beyar-Katz, Yaakov Dickstein, Sara Borok, Liat Vidal, Leonard Leibovici, Mical Paul

Abstract

The pattern of infections among neutropenic patients with cancer has shifted in the last decades to a predominance of gram-positive infections. Some of these gram-positive bacteria are increasingly resistant to beta-lactams and necessitate specific antibiotic treatment. To assess the effectiveness of empirical anti-gram-positive (antiGP) antibiotic treatment for febrile neutropenic patients with cancer in terms of mortality and treatment failure. To assess the rate of resistance development, further infections and adverse events associated with additional antiGP treatment. For the review update we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2017, Issue 2), MEDLINE (May 2012 to 2017), Embase (May 2012 to 2017), LILACS (2012 to 2017), conference proceedings, ClinicalTrials.gov trial registry, and the references of the included studies. We contacted the first authors of all included and potentially relevant trials. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing one antibiotic regimen versus the same regimen with the addition of an antiGP antibiotic for the treatment of febrile neutropenic patients with cancer. Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted all data. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. A random-effects model was used for all comparisons showing substantial heterogeneity (I(2) > 50%). Outcomes were extracted by intention-to-treat and the analysis was patient-based whenever possible. Fourteen trials and 2782 patients or episodes were included. Empirical antiGP antibiotics were tested at the onset of treatment in 12 studies, and for persistent fever in two studies. The antiGP treatment was a glycopeptide in nine trials. Eight studies were assessed in the overall mortality comparison and no significant difference was seen between the comparator arms, RR of 0.90 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.25; 8 studies, 1242 patients; moderate-quality data). Eleven trials assessed failure, including modifications as failures, while seven assessed overall failure disregarding treatment modifications. Failure with modifications was reduced, RR of 0.72 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.79; 11 studies, 2169 patients; very low-quality data), while overall failure was the same, RR of 1.00 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.27; 7 studies, 943 patients; low-quality data). Sensitivity analysis for allocation concealment and incomplete outcome data did not change the results. Failure among patients with gram-positive infections was reduced with antiGP treatment, RR of 0.56 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.84, 5 studies, 175 patients), although, mortality among these patients was not changed.Data regarding other patient subgroups likely to benefit from antiGP treatment were not available. Glycopeptides did not increase fungal superinfection rates and were associated with a reduction in documented gram-positive superinfections. Resistant colonisation was not documented in the studies. Based on very low- or low-quality evidence using the GRADE approach and overall low risk of bias, the current evidence shows that the empirical routine addition of antiGP treatment, namely glycopeptides, does not improve the outcomes of febrile neutropenic patients with cancer.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 17%
Other 10 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Student > Postgraduate 7 10%
Student > Master 6 8%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 15 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 6%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 17 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 January 2019.
All research outputs
#2,306,089
of 14,162,573 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,090
of 10,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,799
of 269,331 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#152
of 243 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,162,573 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 10,869 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 269,331 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 243 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.