↓ Skip to main content

Probiotics for preventing urinary tract infection in people with neuropathic bladder

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2017
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 (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
28 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
Probiotics for preventing urinary tract infection in people with neuropathic bladder
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010723.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Toh, Swee-Ling, Boswell-Ruys, Claire L, Lee, Bon San B, Simpson, Judy M, Clezy, Kate R, Swee-Ling Toh, Claire L Boswell-Ruys, Bon San B Lee, Judy M Simpson, Kate R Clezy

Abstract

Neuropathic or neurogenic bladder describes a process of dysfunctional voiding as the result of injury in the brain, spinal cord or nerves innervating the bladder. People with neuropathic bladder, such as from spinal cord injury (SCI), are at significant risk of morbidity from urinary tract infections (UTI). Effective methods to prevent UTI in people with SCI have been sought for many years. Probiotics (micro-organisms that exert beneficial health effects in the host) have been recommended for bacterial interference of the urological tract to reduce colonisation by uropathogen and to manage the dual problems of infection and antibiotic resistance. This review looked at the benefits and harms of probiotics in preventing symptomatic UTI in people with neuropathic bladder compared with placebo, no therapy, or non-antibiotic prophylaxis (cranberry juice, methenamine hippurate, topical oestrogen). We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register up to 10 March 2017 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Specialised Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and cross-over RCTs looking at the use of probiotics for the prophylaxis of UTI in people with neuropathic bladders was considered for inclusion. Men, women and children of all ages with neuropathic bladders from neurological injury such as suprapontine, supra sacral and sacral aetiologies was included. All bladder management types, including reflex voiding, time voiding, indwelling and intermittent catheterization were eligible for this review.Studies comparing probiotics to placebo, no treatment or other non-antibiotic prophylaxis was included. Studies comparing probiotics with antibiotics or in combination with antibiotics were excluded. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI were planned for continuous outcomes. This review includes a total of three studies (one cross-over and two parallel RCTs) which involved 110 participants. All three studies looked at intravesical instillation of a low virulent Escherichia coli (E. coli) strain in reducing the risk of symptomatic UTI in participants with neuropathic bladder, predominantly from SCI. Two studies used the E. coli 83972 strain and one study used the E. coli HU2117 strain.We did not find any RCTs involving other probiotics or other routes of administration for preventing UTI in people with neuropathic bladder.There was consistency in definition of symptomatic UTI in all three studies. Symptoms that all studies considered were relevant to diagnose UTI were adequately defined. All three studies defined microbiological diagnosis of symptomatic UTI.Asymptomatic bacteriuria was not considered an outcome measure in any of the included studies; however it was defined in two studies to establish successful inoculation.It is uncertain if the risk of symptomatic UTI is reduced with bladder inoculation using E. coli because the certainty of the evidence is very low (3 studies, 110 participants: RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.19; I(2) = 82%).Two studies reported adverse events. One study reported one episode of autonomic dysreflexia. One study reported three symptomatic UTI occurring in two patients, and two studies mentioned the absence of septicaemia and pyelonephritis. Intravesical instillation was reported as "generally safe". One study reported high attrition rates in participants due to the need to adhere to strict instillation protocols.The overall quality of the studies was poor. All three studies had high risk of attrition bias due to failure of an intention-to-treat analysis which undermines the randomisation process and weakened the results of the studies. All three studies also had high risk of reporting bias. In this review, there were no studies identified addressing oral probiotics in preventing UTI in people with neuropathic bladder. It is uncertain if the risk of symptomatic UTI is reduced in people with neuropathic bladders via intravesical instillation of non-pathogenic E. coli as data were derived from small studies with high risk of bias.Although very minimal levels of harm was reported with this procedure, due to variable success rates, the need for strict adherence to instillation protocols together with high attrition rates in these studies, it is doubtful bladder instillation will be a widely accepted intervention in its current form.It is recommended that further appropriately powered RCTs with more robust methodological reporting be carried out.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 5%
Unknown 21 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 32%
Student > Master 5 23%
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Other 2 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Other 3 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 68%
Psychology 2 9%
Arts and Humanities 1 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Unspecified 1 5%
Other 2 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 12 November 2017.
All research outputs
#495,961
of 8,653,205 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,012
of 8,708 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,612
of 233,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#61
of 180 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,653,205 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,708 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 233,597 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 180 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 66% of its contemporaries.