↓ Skip to main content

Osmotic therapies added to antibiotics for acute bacterial meningitis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
146 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
Osmotic therapies added to antibiotics for acute bacterial meningitis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008806.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emma CB Wall, Katherine MB Ajdukiewicz, Hanna Bergman, Robert S Heyderman, Paul Garner

Abstract

Every day children and adults die from acute community-acquired bacterial meningitis, particularly in low-income countries, and survivors risk deafness, epilepsy and neurological disabilities. Osmotic therapies may attract extra-vascular fluid and reduce cerebral oedema, and thus reduce death and improve neurological outcomes.This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2013. To evaluate the effects of osmotic therapies added to antibiotics for acute bacterial meningitis in children and adults on mortality, deafness and neurological disability. We searched CENTRAL (2017, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1950 to 17 February 2017), Embase (1974 to 17 February 2017), CINAHL (1981 to 17 February 2017), LILACS (1982 to 17 February 2017) and registers of ongoing clinical trials (ClinicalTrials.com, WHO ICTRP) (21 February 2017). We also searched conference abstracts and contacted researchers in the field (up to 12 December 2015). Randomised controlled trials testing any osmotic therapy in adults or children with acute bacterial meningitis. Two review authors independently screened the search results and selected trials for inclusion. Results are presented using risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) and grouped according to whether the participants received steroids or not. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. We included five trials with 1451 participants. Four trials evaluated glycerol against placebo, and one evaluated glycerol against 50% dextrose; in addition three trials evaluated dexamethasone and one trial evaluated acetaminophen (paracetamol) in a factorial design. Stratified analysis shows no effect modification with steroids; we present aggregate effect estimates.Compared to placebo, glycerol probably has little or no effect on death in people with bacterial meningitis (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.30; 5 studies, 1272 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but may reduce neurological disability (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.00; 5 studies, 1270 participants; low-certainty evidence).Glycerol may have little or no effect on seizures during treatment for meningitis (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.30; 4 studies, 1090 participants; low-certainty evidence).Glycerol may reduce the risk of subsequent deafness (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.93; 5 studies, 922 participants; low to moderate-certainty evidence).Glycerol probably has little or no effect on gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.19; 3 studies, 607 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The evidence on nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea is uncertain (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.47; 2 studies, 851 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Glycerol was the only osmotic therapy evaluated, and data from trials to date have not demonstrated an effect on death. Glycerol may reduce neurological deficiency and deafness.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 146 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 145 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 16%
Student > Bachelor 17 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 12%
Researcher 15 10%
Other 13 9%
Other 31 21%
Unknown 29 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 14%
Psychology 6 4%
Unspecified 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 38 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 04 March 2019.
All research outputs
#2,643,803
of 14,437,320 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,488
of 10,966 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,966
of 358,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#119
of 202 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,437,320 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,966 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 358,677 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 202 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.