↓ Skip to main content

Modes of administration of antibiotics for symptomatic severe urinary tract infections

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
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 (95th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
126 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Modes of administration of antibiotics for symptomatic severe urinary tract infections
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003237.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Annette Pohl

Abstract

Urinary tract infection (UTI), worldwide, is a major source of disease in children and adults. As it may have long-term consequences such as kidney failure and hypertension, it is important to treat patients with UTI adequately. Although standard management of severe UTI usually means intravenous (IV) therapy, at least initially, there are studies showing that oral therapy may also be effective. To assess whether the mode of administration of antibiotic therapy for severe UTI has an effect on cure rate, reinfection rate and kidney scarring. The Cochrane Renal Group's specialised register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, in The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. No language restriction was applied. Reference lists of relevant articles and reviews were checked for additional studies and authors of relevant articles/abstracts were contacted for further information. Date of last search: July 2007. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different modes of antibiotic application for patients with severe UTI (children and adults) were considered. Study quality was assessed and data extracted. Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model and the results expressed as relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes or mean difference (WMD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Fifteen RCTs (1743 patients) were included. Studies compared oral versus parenteral treatment (1), oral versus switch treatment (initial intravenous (IV) or intramuscular (IM) therapy followed by oral therapy) (5), switch versus parenteral treatment (6) and single dose parenteral followed by oral therapy versus oral (1) or switch therapy (3). There was a variety of short-term and long-term outcomes, but no pooled outcomes showed significant differences. Most included studies were small though and there were few outcomes for combination in a meta-analysis. There is no evidence suggesting that oral antibiotic therapy is less effective for treatment of severe UTI than parenteral or initial parenteral therapy. The results of this review suggest that the mode of application does not determine therapeutic success.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 2%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 123 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 12%
Researcher 13 10%
Student > Postgraduate 12 10%
Student > Bachelor 12 10%
Other 10 8%
Other 29 23%
Unknown 35 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 58 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 41 33%
Attention Score in Context

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 29 June 2020.
All research outputs
#1,976,719
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,204
of 11,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,271
of 88,324 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#18
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,487 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 88,324 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.