↓ Skip to main content

Antibiotics for acute bronchitis

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
199 tweeters
facebook
9 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
385 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
Antibiotics for acute bronchitis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000245.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susan M Smith, Tom Fahey, John Smucny, Lorne A Becker

Abstract

The benefits and risks of antibiotics for acute bronchitis remain unclear despite it being one of the most common illnesses seen in primary care. To assess the effects of antibiotics in improving outcomes and to assess adverse effects of antibiotic therapy for people with a clinical diagnosis of acute bronchitis. We searched CENTRAL 2016, Issue 11 (accessed 13 January 2017), MEDLINE (1966 to January week 1, 2017), Embase (1974 to 13 January 2017), and LILACS (1982 to 13 January 2017). We searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov on 5 April 2017. Randomised controlled trials comparing any antibiotic therapy with placebo or no treatment in acute bronchitis or acute productive cough, in people without underlying pulmonary disease. At least two review authors extracted data and assessed trial quality. We did not identify any new trials for inclusion in this 2017 update. We included 17 trials with 5099 participants in the primary analysis. The quality of trials was generally good. At follow-up there was no difference in participants described as being clinically improved between the antibiotic and placebo groups (11 studies with 3841 participants, risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99 to 1.15). Participants given antibiotics were less likely to have a cough (4 studies with 275 participants, RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.85; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 6) and a night cough (4 studies with 538 participants, RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.83; NNTB 7). Participants given antibiotics had a shorter mean cough duration (7 studies with 2776 participants, mean difference (MD) -0.46 days, 95% CI -0.87 to -0.04). The differences in presence of a productive cough at follow-up and MD of productive cough did not reach statistical significance.Antibiotic-treated participants were more likely to be improved according to clinician's global assessment (6 studies with 891 participants, RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.79; NNTB 11) and were less likely to have an abnormal lung exam (5 studies with 613 participants, RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.70; NNTB 6). Antibiotic-treated participants also had a reduction in days feeling ill (5 studies with 809 participants, MD -0.64 days, 95% CI -1.16 to -0.13) and days with impaired activity (6 studies with 767 participants, MD -0.49 days, 95% CI -0.94 to -0.04). The differences in proportions with activity limitations at follow-up did not reach statistical significance. There was a significant trend towards an increase in adverse effects in the antibiotic group (12 studies with 3496 participants, RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.36; NNT for an additional harmful outcome 24). There is limited evidence of clinical benefit to support the use of antibiotics in acute bronchitis. Antibiotics may have a modest beneficial effect in some patients such as frail, elderly people with multimorbidity who may not have been included in trials to date. However, the magnitude of this benefit needs to be considered in the broader context of potential side effects, medicalisation for a self limiting condition, increased resistance to respiratory pathogens, and cost of antibiotic treatment.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 199 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 385 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 7 2%
Brazil 3 <1%
Ireland 2 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 365 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 67 17%
Researcher 56 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 53 14%
Student > Bachelor 38 10%
Unspecified 38 10%
Other 133 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 215 56%
Unspecified 58 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 6%
Social Sciences 18 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 16 4%
Other 56 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 154. 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 07 February 2019.
All research outputs
#94,820
of 13,609,322 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#200
of 10,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,324
of 264,280 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7
of 255 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,609,322 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,676 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 264,280 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 255 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.