↓ Skip to main content

Combination antimicrobial susceptibility testing for acute exacerbations in chronic infection of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Combination antimicrobial susceptibility testing for acute exacerbations in chronic infection of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006961.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Valerie Waters, Felix Ratjen

Abstract

Antibiotic therapy for acute pulmonary exacerbations in people with cystic fibrosis is usually chosen based on the results of antimicrobial susceptibility testing of individual drugs. Combination antimicrobial susceptibility testing assesses the efficacy of drug combinations including two or three antibiotics in vitro and can often demonstrate antimicrobial efficacy against bacterial isolates even when individual antibiotics have little or no effect. Therefore, choosing antibiotics based on combination antimicrobial susceptibility testing could potentially improve response to treatment in people with cystic fibrosis with acute exacerbations. This is an updated version of a previously published review. To compare antibiotic therapy based on conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing to antibiotic therapy based on combination antimicrobial susceptibility testing in the treatment of acute pulmonary exacerbations in people with cystic fibrosis and chronic infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register which comprises of references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. Date of latest search: 19 December 2016.We also searched ongoing trials registries. Date of latest search: 08 March 2017. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled studies of antibiotic therapy based on conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing compared to antibiotic therapy based on combination antimicrobial susceptibility testing in the treatment of acute pulmonary exacerbations in cystic fibrosis due to chronic infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Both authors independently selected studies, assessed their quality and extracted data from eligible studies. Additionally, the authors contacted the study investigators to obtain further information. The search identified one multicentre study eligible for inclusion in the review. This study prospectively assessed whether the use of multiple combination bactericidal antibiotic testing improved clinical outcomes in participants with acute pulmonary exacerbations of cystic fibrosis who were infected with multiresistant bacteria. A total of 132 participants were randomised in the study. The study investigators provided data specific to the 82 participants who were only infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa for their primary outcome of time until next pulmonary exacerbation. For participants specifically infected with only Pseudomonas aeruginosa, the hazard ratio of a subsequent exacerbation was 0.82, favouring the control group (95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.51) (P = 0.52). No further data for any of this review's outcomes specific to participants infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa were available. The risk of bias for the included study was deemed to be low. The quality of the evidence was moderate for the only outcome providing data solely for individuals with infection due to Pseudomonas aeruginosa. For other outcomes, we were unable to judge the quality of the evidence as no data were available for the relevant subset of participants. The current evidence, limited to one study, shows that there is insufficient evidence to determine effect of choosing antibiotics based on combination antimicrobial susceptibility testing compared to choosing antibiotics based on conventional antimicrobial susceptibility testing in the treatment of acute pulmonary exacerbations in people with cystic fibrosis with chronic Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection. A large international and multicentre study is needed to further investigate this issue.The only study included in the review was published in 2005, and we have not identified any further relevant studies up to March 2017. We therefore do not plan to update this review until new studies are published.

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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 50 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 20%
Student > Master 10 20%
Student > Bachelor 8 16%
Researcher 7 14%
Other 4 8%
Other 12 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 43%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 16%
Unspecified 5 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 11 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 June 2017.
All research outputs
#3,869,695
of 13,190,464 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,928
of 10,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,534
of 265,067 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#201
of 256 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,190,464 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
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 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 265,067 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 256 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.