↓ Skip to main content

Macrolides for treatment of Haemophilus ducreyi infection in sexually active adults

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 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
Macrolides for treatment of Haemophilus ducreyi infection in sexually active adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012492.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura Romero, Cesar Huerfano, Carlos F Grillo-Ardila

Abstract

Chancroid is a genital ulcerative disease caused by Haemophilus ducreyi. This microorganism is endemic in Africa, where it can cause up to 10% of genital ulcers. Macrolides may be an effective alternative to treat chancroid and, based on their oral administration and duration of therapy, could be considered as first line therapy. To assess the effectiveness and safety of macrolides for treatment of H ducreyi infection in sexually active adults. We searched the Cochrane STI Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov and Web of Science to 30 October 2017. We also handsearched conference proceedings and reference lists of retrieved studies. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing macrolides in different regimens or with other therapeutic alternatives for chancroid. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We resolved disagreements through consensus. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence. Seven RCTs (875 participants) met our inclusion criteria, of which four were funded by industry. Five studies (664 participants) compared macrolides with ceftriaxone, ciprofloxacin, spectinomycin or thiamphenicol. Low quality evidence suggested there was no difference between the groups after treatment in terms of clinical cure (risk ratio (RR) 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.21; 2 studies, 340 participants with syndromic approach and RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.15; 5 studies, 348 participants with aetiological diagnosis) or improvement (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.52; 2 studies, 340 participants with syndromic approach and RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.51; 3 studies, 187 participants with aetiological diagnosis). Based on low and very low quality evidence, there was no difference between macrolides and any other antibiotic treatments for microbiological cure (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.16; 1 study, 45 participants) and minor adverse effects (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.24 to 7.51; 3 studies, 412 participants).Two trials (269 participants) compared erythromycin with any other macrolide type. Low quality evidence suggested that, compared with azithromycin or rosaramicin, long courses of erythromycin did not increase clinical cure (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.10; 2 studies, 269 participants with syndromic approach and RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.16; 2 studies, 211 participants with aetiological diagnosis), with a similar frequency of minor adverse effects between the groups (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.06; 1 trial, 101 participants). For this comparison, subgroup analysis found no difference between HIV-positive participants (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.43; 1 study, 38 participants) and HIV-negative participants (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.14; 1 study, 89 participants). We downgraded the quality of evidence to low, because of imprecision, some limitations on risk of bias and heterogeneity.None of the trials reported serious adverse events, cost effectiveness and participant satisfaction. At present, the quality of the evidence on the effectiveness and safety of macrolides for treatment of H ducreyi infection in sexually active adults is low, implying that we are uncertain about the estimated treatment effect. There is no statistically significant difference between the available therapeutic alternatives for the treatment of sexually active adults with genital ulcers compatible with chancroid. Low quality evidence suggests that azithromycin could be considered as the first therapeutic alternative, based on their mono-dose oral administration, with a similar safety and effectiveness profile, when it is compared with long-term erythromycin use.Due to sparse available evidence about the safety and effectiveness of macrolides to treat H ducreyi infection in people with HIV, these results should be taken with caution.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 86 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 22%
Student > Bachelor 12 14%
Researcher 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 18 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 15%
Social Sciences 6 7%
Psychology 4 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 5%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 22 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 23 October 2019.
All research outputs
#3,710,060
of 14,684,909 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,384
of 11,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,895
of 400,779 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#147
of 234 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,684,909 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,037 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.5. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 400,779 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 234 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.